Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02006/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02006-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 13, 2017*

Decided February 13, 2017

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐2006

SHIRLEY THOMAS,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

        Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 14 cv 7900

Susan E. Cox,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

Shirley Thomas applied in 2009 for disability benefits, alleging that lung problems

have rendered her disabled since 1990. An administrative law judge denied the claim,

and the district court upheld that decision, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Thomas has waived

arguments on appeal because she does not develop any challenge to the ALJ’s or the

                                                 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not

significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Also pursuant to FED. R. APP.

P. 43(c)(2), we have substituted Nancy A. Berryhill as the named defendant‐appellee.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-2006 Document: 21 Filed: 02/13/2017 Pages: 3
No. 16‐2006    Page 2

district court’s reasoning. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Long v. Teachersʹ Ret. Sys. of Ill., 585

F.3d 344, 349 (7th Cir. 2009). Although not necessary because of this waiver, we have

reviewed the ALJ’s decision, and, finding no error, we affirm.

Thomas’s application in 2009 was her third; she also applied for disability benefits

in 2002 and 2005. Both times she asserted that she had a lung disease that materialized in

1990, which was before her insured status lapsed in 1995. Thomas began to see Dr. Fred

Daniels in 1990 for lung treatment. Dr. Daniels ruled out lung‐tissue scarring, finding

that her lung fields were clear and her pulmonary test levels normal. Dr. Daniels

referred Thomas to two other doctors, who noted that Thomas’s lungs were clear. At a

clinic in 1993, doctors also wrote that her lungs had good air movement and were clear.

Thomas went to the emergency room in 2000 for chest congestion, but a chest x‐ray

revealed that her lungs were clear, a conclusion reached during her next four visits to the

emergency room. Another doctor evaluated her in 2002 and determined that Thomas’s

lungs sounded clear and produced no abnormal noises. Based on this record, ALJs

denied her claims by 2009.

When Thomas filed her current claim for benefits in 2009, she repeated her claim

that her respiratory issues had disabled her since 1990. She submitted the records from

her earlier application and updated them with new medical records that resume in 2009.

We divide her new application into two periods—before 2009 (when the last of her prior

applications was decided) and after she applied the third time in 2009 (a period covered

by the Supplemental Security Income Program).   

An ALJ rejected Thomas’s claims for both periods. For the pre‐2009 period, the

ALJ concluded that Thomas’s claim was barred by res judicata.

For the post‐2009 period, the ALJ ruled (after an interim remand from the appeals

council) that Thomas did not qualify for benefits because she could perform a number of

available jobs. The record consisted of the following: In a visit to the hospital in 2009, she

was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and interstitial lung disease, but an x‐ray revealed

that her lung fields were clear. Another visit a year later for chest pain produced an x‐ray

and respiratory tests that revealed no lung problems. Pulmonary function tests in 2010

showed a normal spirometry (the amount of air inhaled and exhaled) and that her lung

volumes were over 95% of what was expected. Hospital visits during 2011 revealed that

her lungs consistently sounded clear. Doctors twice treated Thomas in 2012 for

respiratory infections but observed that her lungs again sounded clear, her breath

sounds were equal, and she had symmetrical chest wall expansion.

Case: 16-2006 Document: 21 Filed: 02/13/2017 Pages: 3
No. 16‐2006    Page 3

The ALJ correctly determined that res judicata bars Thomas’s claim for the first

period. Res judicata bars relitigation of already‐decided administrative claims.

See Groves v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 1998); 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(1). Thus

Thomas cannot show that she was disabled during the pre‐2009 period. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 423(a)(1); Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 311 (7th Cir. 2012); Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d

693, 699 (7th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.131, 404.320(b)(2).

The ALJ also permissibly denied Supplemental Security Income benefits for the

post‐2009 period. We uphold the Commissioner’s denial of benefits when it is supported

by substantial evidence. See Meuser v. Colvin, 838 F.3d 905, 910 (7th Cir. 2016). And here

the record contains ample evidence to support the denial. The Commissioner considered

that Thomas’s lungs sounded clear on repeated exams, including during two visits to the

hospital in 2012. Images of Thomas’s lungs also appeared normal. The record is devoid

of any medical opinion suggesting that Thomas suffers from ongoing, debilitating

limitations of her lungs.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-2006 Document: 21 Filed: 02/13/2017 Pages: 3