# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 31 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ro sc he ll H. Broo ke

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Caro lyn W . Col vi n, Acti ng Co m m is si on er, So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on 1

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - Har ris on

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: May 20, 2 01 3 Fi le d: May 22, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Caro lyn W

. Co lv in ha s be en ap po in t e d t o se rv e as act in g Co m m is si on er of 1 So ci al Secu rit y , an d is subs ti tu te d as ap pe ll ee pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 4 3( c).Ro sc he ll H. B ro ok e ap pe al s th e d is tri ctco ur t’s ord er af fir m in g t he de ni al of 2

su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e. Upo n de no vo rev ie w of th e reco rd , we co nc lu de th at th e fin di ng s of th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge (ALJ) are su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce in th e reco rd as a who le , in cl ud in g ne w an d m at eri al ev id en ce th e App eal s Co un ci l co ns id ered in de cl in in g rev ie w. See O’D on ne ll v. Ba rn ha rt, 3 18 F.3d 81 1, 81 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). W e fin d no m eri t to Bro ok e’s arg um en ts co nc ern in g th e ALJ’s fai lu re to ex pl ai n why sh e di d no t m eet a li st in g, se e Bo et tc he r v. Ast ru e, 65 2 F.3 d 86 0, 8 63 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (whe n ALJ fai ls to ex pl ai n wh y im pa irment d oe s n ot m eet

or eq ua l on e of li st ed im

pa irments , it is no t erro r if co nc lu si on is su pp or te d by ov eral l

reco rd ); th e ALJ’s fai lu re to de ve lo p th e reco rd o n he r ba ck pa in , se e Mo us er v. Ast ru e, 54 5 F.3 d 63 4, 63 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ALJ is no t ob li ga te d to in ve st ig at e cl ai m
no t pr es en te d in ap pl ic at io n or of fere d at he a r in g as ba si s fo r di sa bi li ty); Ell is v. Barn ha rt, 39 2 F.3 d 98 8, 99 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (rev ers al fo r fai lu re to de ve lo p reco rd is

warra nt ed on ly whe re su ch fai lu re is un fai r or pr ejudici al ); or th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n
as to he r res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty (RFC ), se e Perk s v. Ast ru e, 68 7 F.3 d 10 86 , 10 92 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ) (m ed ic al reco rd s, ph y si ci an ob se rv at io ns , and cla im an t’s s ub jecti ve st at em en ts ab ou t cap ab il it ie s m ay be us ed to su pp or t RFC; RFC m us t b e su pp or te d by so m e m ed ic al ev id en ce, bu t b u r d en of pe rs ua si on to pr ov e di sa bi li ty an d sh ow R F C rem ai ns on cl ai m an t). Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t i s affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ja m es R. Mar sc he wsk i, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 2 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, to who m th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al di sp os it io n by
co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).
-2

-