Mary P. Loeffler appeals the District Court’s2 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In conjunction with her June 1997 applications, Loeffler claimed disability since March 1996 because- of fibromyalgia, depression, and allergies. After a hearing at which a vocational expert testified in response to a hypothetical posed by the administrative law judge (ALJ), the ALJ found that Loeffler could not perform her past relevant work, but she could perform the jobs the vocational expert identified. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review), we affirm.
We reject Loeffler’s apparent challenge to the ALJ’s credibility findings. See Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8th Cir.2001) (explaining that deference to ALJ is appropriate when ALJ explicitly discredits *606claimant and presents reasonable basis for doing so). We conclude that Loeffler’s reliance on the statements by her doctors that were related to her workers’ compensation claim is misplaced because a disability determination by another agency is not binding on the Social Security Administration, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1504, 416.904 (2001), and as the ALJ noted, these physicians’ residual functional capacity findings were consistent with those of the ALJ. Moreover, the record belies Loeffler’s assertions about her inability to afford treatment. We decline to address Loeffler’s remaining arguments. See Planet Prods., Inc. v. Shank, 119 F.3d 729, 732 (8th Cir. 1997) (declining to consider argument raised for first time in reply brief); Misner v. Chater, 79 F.3d 745, 746 (8th Cir. 1996) (refusing to consider argument not raised in district court).
Loeffler’s tendered supplemental brief is accepted for filing.
The order of the District Court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.