Case Name: Brandi Michele JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-16
Citations: 577 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 13-3140
Parties: Brandi Michele JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 577
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Brandi Michele JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-3140.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2014.
Filed: Sept. 16, 2014.
Stephen Bennett, Bennett Law Office, Sherwood, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Mark Jarrett Kingsolver, Assistant Regional Counsel, Michael McGaughran, Gregory Edward White, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, Stacey E. McCord, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Brandi Michele Johnson appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The sole issue Johnson raises on appeal provides no basis for reversal, see Hill v. Colvin, 753 F.3d 798, 800 (8th Cir.2014) (de novo review), because Johnson's argument is foreclosed by Anderson v. Barnhart, 344 F.3d 809 (8th Cir.2003). In Anderson, this court held that a claimant had waived for appeal his claim that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not consider his obesity as an impairment, by failing to allege any functional limitation from obesity in his application for benefits or during the hearing. See id. at 814. Similarly, this court has held that an ALJ is not obligated to investigate a claim that was not presented in the benefit application or offered at the administrative hearing as a basis for disability. See Pena v. Chater, 76 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir.1996). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 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).