Thomas Pierzchalski v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 10-2251 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence; there was no evidence that the ALJ was biased and the ALJ gave multiple valid reasons for discounting certain medical testimony.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2251 ___________ Thomas N. Pierzchalski, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner * of Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: November 3, 2010 Filed: November 17, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Thomas N. Pierzchalski appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Upon de novo review of the record, see Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2007), we find that the Commissioner s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the 1 The Honorable James R. Marschewski, 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). record as a whole. As to Pierzchalski s arguments for reversal, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) gave multiple valid reasons for discounting the opinion of consulting neuropsychologist Vann Smith, including that Dr. Smith saw Pierzchalski only once, see Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir. 2004); we find no evidence of bias on the part of the ALJ, see Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (quasi-judicial administrative officers such as ALJs are presumed unbiased, but presumption can be rebutted by showing conflict of interest or other specific reason for disqualification); and we conclude that the ALJ was not required to develop the record further based on Dr. Smith s new post-hearing diagnosis of cognitive dysfunction, see Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710, 713 (8th Cir. 2003). 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.
