Denise Smith v. Michael Astrue, No. 09-2921 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that claimant's minor daughter's severe impairments are not functionally equivalent to a listed impairment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-2921 ___________ Denise Smith, on behalf of B.M.M., * * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Arkansas. * Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED] Social Security Administration, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: June 3, 2010 Filed: June 15, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Denise Smith, on behalf of her minor daughter B.M.M., appeals from the order of the District Court1 affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Moore ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 413 F.3d 718, 721 (8th Cir. 2005), we agree with the District Court that substantial evidence supports the administrative 1 The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). law judge's determination that B.M.M.'s severe impairments are not functionally equivalent to a listed impairment or impairments because the record does not reflect an "extreme" limitation in at least one of the six functional domains listed in 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1) or a "marked" limitation in at least two of the domains. We decline to address Smith's contention that B.M.M.'s severe impairments meet or are medically equal to a listed impairment or impairments. See Flynn v. Chater, 107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that new arguments need not be entertained on appeal unless manifest injustice would otherwise result); see also Rotskoff v. Cooley, 438 F.3d 852, 854 55 (8th Cir. 2006) (observing that an issue is deemed abandoned where it is not developed in brief); Vandenboom v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2005) (summarily rejecting conclusory assertion that claimant was disabled under certain listings). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
