Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02921/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02921-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Denise Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

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). 

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Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED]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 thatsubstantial evidence supports the administrative

Appellate Case: 09-2921 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2010 Entry ID: 3674231
-2-

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. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2921 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2010 Entry ID: 3674231