Thomas Pierzchalski v. Michael J. Astrue , 402 F. App'x 149 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2251
    ___________
    Thomas N. Pierzchalski,                 *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the Western
    * District of Arkansas.
    Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner         *
    of Social Security Administration,      * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 3, 2010
    Filed: November 17, 2010
    ___________
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Thomas N. Pierzchalski appeals the district court’s1 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
    1
    The Honorable James R. Marschewski, 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).
    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.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2251

Citation Numbers: 402 F. App'x 149

Judges: Bye, Bowman, Colloton

Filed Date: 11/17/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024