Case Name: Thomas N. PIERZCHALSKI, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-17
Citations: 402 F. App'x 149
Docket Number: No. 10-2251
Parties: Thomas N. PIERZCHALSKI, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Appellee.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 149–150

Head Matter:
Thomas N. PIERZCHALSKI, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Appellee.
No. 10-2251.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 3, 2010.
Filed: Nov. 17, 2010.
Frederick S. Spencer, argued, Mountain Home, AR, for Appellant.
Claude Shackelford Hawkins, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, Martin W. Long, Michael McGaughran, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, argued, Dallas, TX, for Appel-lee.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas N. Pierzchalski appeals the district court's order affirming the denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Upon de novo review of the record, see Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 989-90 (8th Cir.2007), we find that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. As to Pierzchalski's arguments for reversal, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) gave multiple valid reasons for discounting the opinion of consulting neuropsychologist Vann Smith, including that Dr. Smith saw Pierzchalski only once, see Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir.2004); we find no evidence of bias on the part of the ALJ, see Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir.2001) (quasi-judicial administrative officers such as ALJs are presumed unbiased, but presumption can be rebutted by showing conflict of interest or other specific reason for disqualification); and we conclude that the ALJ was not required to develop the record further based on Dr. Smith's new post-hearing diagnosis of cognitive dysfunction, see Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710, 713 (8th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the West ern 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).