Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02452/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02452-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2452

___________

Bonnie McCaslin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner *

of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2006

Filed: February 15, 2006

___________

Before SMITH and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bonnie McCaslin appeals an order of the district court2

 granting her application

for supplemental security income, but rejecting her request to reopen a previous

decision denying her disability insurance benefits due to res judicata. On June 4,

1990, McCaslin sought Title II disability benefits and Title XVI supplemental security

Appellate Case: 05-2452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2006 Entry ID: 2010082
-2-

income benefits, claiming she was disabled as a result of numerous maladies. An

administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision denying all benefits

on November 27, 1992. McCaslin did not appeal the decision. McCaslin reapplied

for Title II and Title XVI benefits on July 13, 1993. A second ALJ conducted two

hearings before issuing a decision on July 16, 1997. The second ALJ’s decision,

which found McCaslin was not disabled, made no reference to the first ALJ’s

decision. The Appeals Council granted McCaslin’s request for review and vacated

the second ALJ’s decision. The Appeals Council remanded the matter, finding several

unresolved issues, including the second ALJ’s failure to discuss the doctrine of res

judicata. The Appeals Council directed the ALJ, on remand, to evaluate McCaslin’s

claims in light of the res judicata provisions of 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(1). On remand,

a third ALJ issued a partially favorable decision. The third ALJ, applying the doctrine

of res judicata, concluded the first ALJ’s decision was the final decision of the

Commissioner with respect to McCaslin’s claim for Title II benefits. Thus, the third

ALJ dismissed McCaslin’s request for Title II benefits. However, the third ALJ also

concluded McCaslin was entitled to Title XVI benefits. The Appeals Council denied

McCaslin’s request for review. McCaslin filed suit in the district court. The district

court affirmed the third ALJ’s decision, and McCaslin filed the instant appeal.

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s

findings were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Harris

v. Barnhart, 356 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 2004). The November 27, 1992, order

denying McCaslin’s 1990 claim for Title II disability insurance benefits was not

reopened and, thus, was res judicata as to McCaslin’s 1993 claim for Title II benefits.

This case presents no novel issues to justify an extended discussion. We reject

McCaslin’s contentions for the reasons provided in the district court’s opinion. See

8th Cir. R. 47B. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2006 Entry ID: 2010082