Case ID: f-appx_438/html/0526-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kimberly JEANQUART, On behalf of J.A.J., Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Social Security Commissioner, Appellee.
    No. 11-2041.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 12, 2011.
    Filed: Nov. 10, 2011.
    Frederick S. Spencer, Mountain Home, AR, for Appellant.
    Shalyn Timmons, Assistant Regional Counsel, Michael McGaughran, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, TX, Claude Shackelford Hawkins, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
    Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Kimberly Jeanquart, on behalf of her minor child J.A.J., appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Upon de novo review of the record, see Moore ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 413 F.3d 718, 721 (8th Cir.2005), we conclude (1) that it was proper for the administrative law judge (ALJ) not to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physician Kevin Jackson and one-time consulting psychologist Vann Smith, see Medhaug v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 805, 815 (8th Cir.2009) (because record must be evaluated as whole, treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir.2004) (generally when consulting physician examines claimant only once, his opinion is not substantial evidence); and (2) that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that J.A.J. had less-than-marked limitations in the functional domains of attending and completing tasks and health and physical well-being, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a (functional equivalence for children). The district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Erin Setser, 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).