On behalf of her late husband Mark, Linda Halvorson appeals the district court’s 2 decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We review that decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, including the new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council. See Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly determined Mark’s residual functional capacity, see Anderson v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 1995); and properly evaluated his credibility, see Haggard v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 1999) (decision of ALJ who considers, but for good cause expressly discredits, claimant’s subjective complaints will not be disturbed). Further, we do not believe that the evidence concerning Mark’s demise was material to determining whether he was disabled before his insured status expired. See Bergmann v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 1065, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000) (material evidence is evidence relating to claimant’s condition for time period for which benefits were denied).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.