Mary Skipper appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2008), we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Skipper’s only severe impairment, rheumatoid arthritis, was not disabling. Our review includes consideration of the new evidence that Skipper submitted to the Appeals Council, consisting in part of a medical source statement from a treating rheumatologist. See id. at 828 & n. 2 (new evidence offered only to Appeals Council is included in substantial-evidence equation). In denying review, the Appeals Council found that the new information provided no basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. See Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 1992) (rejecting appellant’s assertion that when Appeals Council denies review, it must make its own findings and articulate its own assessment of new evidence). The district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.