Donna ARNOLD, on behalf of David Arnold, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee, 235 F. App'x 378

PER CURIAM. Donna C. Arnold, on behalf of David J. Arnold, appeals the district court’s affirmanee of the Commissioner’s denial of her application for supplemental security income. The administrative law judge reasoned that although David, a fourth-grader, had organic brain dysfunction — a severe impairment — he did not have any impairment or combination of impairments that met, or medically or functionally equaled, a listed impairment in the governing regulations.

The ALJ noted that with the help of his resource teacher, David made fair-to-good grades, with no serious difficulty working independently and completing tasks on time. The ALJ found that David performed most daily activities without difficulty, was able to dress and feed himself, got along reasonably well with others, was independent in daily activity and self care, and had no significant limitation in his health and physical well-being. The ALJ determined that the opinion of Dr.

Yann Smith was not persuasive because he completed the one-page checklist on the day of the hearing, almost two years after last seeing David. Moreover, Dr. Smith’s own diagnosis was mild organic brain dysfunction, with no evidence of any other psychological problems. Considering David’s academic capability, interactions with others, and medical records, the ALJ concluded that he leads a largely normal life and was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

Having carefully reviewed the record, this court finds that the Commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Travis v. Astrue, 477 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review); Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir.2006) (same). Accordingly, as an extended opinion would have no precedential value, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. . The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W.

Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Neither party objected to Judge Cavaneau's findings and recommendations.