[Unpublished]
Christina Eaton appeals the district courts
2
order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We agree with the court that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the adverse decision. See Twyford v. Commr, Soc. Sec. Admin., 929 F.3d 512, 516 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of district courts judgment; this court will affirm unless Commissioners findings are unsupported by substantial evidence or result from legal error). Specifically, we conclude the record supports the administrative law judges (ALJs) finding that Eatons impairments did not meet the mental disorder listings, see id. at 517 (ALJs finding that listing was not met was supported by treatment notes and claimants daily activities); and the ALJs determination of Eatons residual functional capacity (RFC), see Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 969 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ did not err in failing to include limitation in RFC, as he determined that claimants allegations about such limitation were not credible). We find no merit to Eatons argument that the ALJ erred by failing to recontact the medical expert after the hearing. See Onstad v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1232, 1234 (8th Cir. 1993) (reversal due to failure to develop record is only warranted where such failure is unfair or prejudicial; no prejudice where claimant did not show that evidence ALJ failed to obtain would have made difference in case).
The judgment is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
2
. The Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
PER CURIAM.