The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate 1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom this case was

submitted by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c)(1) (1994).

___________

No. 95-3709

___________

Lisa Burnett, for Priscilla *

Rogers, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner *

of the Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED]

Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 11, 1996

 Filed: July 9, 1996

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Burnett filed a claim for social security benefits for her minor

daughter, Priscilla Rogers, alleging that Rogers was disabled because of

a left-eye impairment. The claim initially was denied by the Commissioner.

Burnett sought reconsideration of the decision, and an administrative law

judge (ALJ) twice denied the claim. The appeals council affirmed the ALJ's

second decision to deny the claim. Burnett sought judicial review, and the

District Court affirmed the decision to deny benefits in its grant of 1
-2-

summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. We affirm the District

Court.

The Social Security Administration has adopted regulations that set

out the process for evaluating a child's claim for disability benefits.

First, the child must not be engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20

C.F.R. § 416.924(c) (1995). Second, the child must have a severe

impairment. Id. § 416.924(d). Third, the impairment or combination of

impairments must either (1) meet or equal the severity of an impairment

listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404 subpt. P app. 1, or (2) be of comparable severity

to an impairment or combination of impairments that would disable an adult.

Id. § 416.924(e),(f). The regulations define an impairment of comparable

severity as one that so limits a child's "ability to function

independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner

that [the] impairment(s) and the limitations resulting from it are

comparable to those which would disable an adult." Id. § 416.924(a).

In this case, the ALJ found that Rogers is not engaged in substantial

gainful activity and that she suffers from severe impairments, specifically

dysthymia (depression or irritability) and oppositional disorder (recurrent

pattern of hostile acts toward authority figures). The ALJ, however,

specifically stated that she did not have a severe impairment from her

vision problem. The ALJ also found that the impairments do not meet or

equal the severity of a listed impairment nor are they of comparable

severity to impairments that would disable an adult. In this appeal,

Burnett challenges only the ALJ's finding that Rogers's impairments are not

of comparable severity to impairments that would disable an adult.

A decision to deny social security benefits is reviewed under a

deferential standard. We will affirm the decision if the findings are

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Reynolds v.

Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 257 (8th Cir. 1996). 
-3-

"Substantial evidence is `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Id. (quoting Smith v.

Shalala, 31 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1994)).

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the ALJ's findings are

supported by substantial evidence. There is no doubt that Rogers has had

a difficult life for someone so young, but the finding that she is not

disabled must be sustained. First, we note that the ALJ did not find that

her vision impairment, the basis of her claim for disability benefits, is

a severe impairment. Second, evidence in the record demonstrates that she

functions independently in an age-appropriate manner even though she

suffers from other severe impairments. While her school work has suffered,

Rogers testified that she is frequently absent because she finds school

boring. In these circumstances, we have no basis for setting aside the

ALJ's finding that Rogers's impairments are not of comparable severity to

impairments that would disable an adult. The judgment of the District

Court therefore is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.