Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11291/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Appellee
Joseph Tomaszewski
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11291

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00374-MTT-CHW

JOSEPH J. TOMASZEWSKI, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(May 2, 2016)

Before JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and KALLON,∗ District Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

 ∗

 Honorable Abdul K. Kallon, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, 

sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 15-11291 Date Filed: 05/02/2016 Page: 1 of 3
2

Joseph Tomaszewski appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social 

Security Commissioner’s (“the Commissioner”) denial of his application for 

Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).

1

 Specifically, Tomaszewski argues that 

res judicata applied to his prior benefits award and the award should have 

presumptively continued under Simpson v. Schweiker, 691 F.2d 966 (11th Cir. 

1982). Because Simpson only applies in benefits continuation cases and this 

appeal stems from a new application Tomaszewski filed, we affirm the decision of 

the district court.

2

 

An ALJ awarded Tomaszewski SSI benefits in 2004. Sometime thereafter, 

Tomaszewski’s wife inherited a substantial amount of money, which resulted in 

Tomaszewski having an annual household income that exceeded the level allowed 

for SSI.

3

 As a result, the Commissioner terminated Tomaszewski’s benefits due to 

 1 Tomaszewski challenges for the first time in his reply brief the Commissioner’s denial 

of his disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). We decline to address this issue because “an 

appellant may not raise an issue for the first time in a reply brief.” United States v. Magluta, 418 

F.3d 1166, 1185 (11th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Moreover, Tomaszewski abandoned any 

arguments related to the denial of his application for DIB by not challenging the decision before 

the district court. See Tomaszewski v. Colvin, 2015 WL 893523 *1 n.3 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2015); 

see also Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting 

Stewart v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 115, 115-16 (11th Cir. 1994) (“As a general 

principle, this Court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court.”)).

2

 In light of our decision that Simpson does not apply here, the Court need not decide 

whether Congress overruled the presumption of continuing disability for benefit continuation 

cases when it enacted 42 U.S.C. §423(f).

 

3

 SSI benefits are “intended to provide only a subsistence level [of] income” to eligible 

disabled persons. See, e.g., Fair v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 1466, 1467 (11th Cir. 1994) (citing 42 

U.S.C. §§1382, 1382a). 

USCA11 Case: 15-11291 Date Filed: 05/02/2016 Page: 2 of 3
3

excess resources. Rather than challenging the termination of his SSI, Tomaszewski 

filed instead a new application for SSI in 2009. The ALJ’s denial of this 2009 

application is the subject of this appeal. 

We disagree with Tomaszewski’s contention that our decision in Simpson

dictates the presumptive continuation of his prior disability determination and that 

res judicata should have barred the re-litigation of his disability status.4 The 

decision to file a new application in 2009 takes Tomaszewski out of the Simpson

benefits continuation heartland, and, as a result, his reliance on Simpson is 

misplaced. See Simpson, 691 F.2d at 969. Moreover, we agree with the district 

court that res judicata does not apply because Tomaszewski’s new SSI application

covers a different time period, and involves new evidence that is independent from 

the prior application. See Luckey v. Astrue, 331 F. App’x. 634, 638 (11th Cir. 

2009). We also agree with the district court that the Commissioner’s decision as a 

whole is supported by substantial evidence. See Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 

(11th Cir. 1997). We, therefore, affirm. 

AFFIRMED. 

 4

 Tomaszewski also argues that he should have received expedited reinstatement of his 

benefits. However, this issue is not properly before this Court because he did not raise it with the

Commissioner. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g) (judicial review is available only after the Commissioner 

issues a final decision).

USCA11 Case: 15-11291 Date Filed: 05/02/2016 Page: 3 of 3