Charlotte Kennedy v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 08-3712 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. ALJ's determinations concerning whether the minor K.W.'s impairments met or equaled a listing and concerning functional equivalence were supported by substantial evidence, and the denial of supplemental security income is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3712 ___________ Charlotte Kennedy, on behalf of K. W., * * * Appeal from the United States Appellant, * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: November 25, 2009 Filed: December 1, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Charlotte Kennedy, on behalf of her minor son K.W., appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. In 2004 applications, Kennedy alleged that K.W.--then age 11--had been disabled since March 1997 from learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and 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. ยง 636(c). allergies. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) K.W. s ADHD and learning disorder, for language/reading and for mathematics, were severe impairments; (2) his impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of any listing; (3) Kennedy s testimony and statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of K.W. s symptoms were not fully credible; and (4) K.W. s impairments, alone or combined, did not functionally equal a listing. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. To the extent Kennedy s arguments are properly before us, see Border State Bank, N.A. v. AgCountry Farm Credit Servs., 535 F.3d 779, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2008) (declining to consider appellant s contention in part because it was not developed in briefs); Flynn v. Chater, 107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1997) (arguments first raised on appeal need not be entertained unless manifest injustice would result), we conclude that the ALJ s determinations concerning whether K.W. s impairments met or equaled a listing, and concerning functional equivalence, are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, see Moore ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 413 F.3d 718, 721 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). 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.
