Angela Biddle v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 17-3118 (8th Cir. 2018)Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that claimant's child's severe impairments did not functionally equal a listed impairment; denial of child-disability benefits affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3118 ___________________________ Angela Renee Biddle, on behalf of KMB lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: August 7, 2018 Filed: August 15, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Angela Renee Biddle, on behalf of her minor daughter KMB, appeals from the order of the District Court1 affirming the denial of child disability benefits. We 1 The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). conclude that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s determination that KMB’s severe impairments did not functionally equal a listed impairment. See England v. Astrue, 490 F.3d 1017, 1019–20 (8th Cir. 2007) (setting out the standard of review and summarizing the “sequential three-step evaluation” for a child-disability claim).2 We affirm the judgment. ______________________________ 2 We did not consider the issues that Biddle raises for the first time on appeal or has abandoned. See Gragg v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 932, 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that issues not raised in the district court would not be considered on appeal because the appellant had not shown “that manifest injustice would otherwise result”); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a party abandons an issue if it is not raised in her appellant brief). -2-