Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02120/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Linda A. Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2120

___________

Linda A. Wilson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 24, 2006

Filed: July 27, 2006 

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Linda Wilson appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the termination of her

disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) based on

a finding of substantial medical improvement of her asthma, which was previously

found to be disabling. For reversal, Wilson argues that (1) the adverse credibility

finding by the administrative law judge (ALJ) was improper under “administrative res

Appellate Case: 05-2120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071739
-2-

judicata” or because it was not supported by adequate reasons and substantial

evidence; (2) the ALJ inadequately developed the record; and (3) the ALJ’s decision

was inconsistent with the Listings and not supported by substantial evidence on the

record as a whole.

We will affirm if substantial record evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that

Wilson is no longer disabled as a result of an improvement in her medical condition.

See Dixon v. Barnhart, 324 F.3d 997, 1000 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review in

continuing-review cases); Nelson v. Sullivan, 946 F.2d 1314, 1315 (8th Cir. 1991)

(per curiam) (claimant has “continuing burden” to show that he or she is disabled;

once that initial burden is met, burden shifts to government to demonstrate that

claimant is no longer disabled as result of improvement in medical condition).

Contrary to Wilson’s argument, the findings made in connection with the prior

disability determination were not binding on the ALJ under “administrative res

judicata.” See Ply v. Massanari, 251 F.3d 777, 778 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)

(rejecting assertion that ALJ was bound by previous findings under “administrative

res judicata”; prior findings were based on claimant’s past disability status and, under

continuing-review regulations, new disability determination is to be made without

drawing inference from prior determination); Nelson, 946 F.2d at 1315 (no inference

is to be drawn from previous grant of benefits). Upon review, we hold that the ALJ’s

adverse credibility finding is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence and

therefore is entitled to deference. See Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th

Cir. 2005) (court defers to ALJ’s credibility finding if supported by good reasons and

substantial evidence).

Wilson’s challenge to the adequacy of the ALJ’s development of the record is

also meritless. She has not identified any records which the ALJ could have and

should have obtained before rendering his decision. In fact, the ALJ requested--from

the only doctor Wilson identified as treating her asthma--both her up-to-date treatment

Appellate Case: 05-2120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071739
-3-

records and a comprehensive assessment of her limitations. We therefore hold that

the ALJ adequately developed the record. Cf. Milton v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 554,

556-57 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (where ALJ had found claimant not disabled due

to lack of evidence, remanding for development of record because ALJ ignored

references in claimant’s application and doctor’s report to tests and treatments for

irreversible chronic lymphatic obstruction of claimant’s right leg and references in

medical reports to claimant’s laminectomy and back impairment, all of which

occurred within relevant time frame). 

 

To the extent Wilson argues the ALJ should have found her disabled under

Listing 3.03B because she visited the emergency room four times in a six-month

period, that argument also fails. The emergency room visits occurred after the ALJ

issued his decision and, in any event, do not establish an impairment meeting or equal

to the relevant medical criteria under the Listing, which requires at least six severe

asthmatic attacks within twelve consecutive months (with hospitalizations of twentyfour hours or more counting as two attacks). See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521,

531 (1990) (to qualify for benefits by showing that impairment or combination of

impairments is “equivalent” to listed impairment, claimant “must present medical

findings equal in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar listed impairment”

regardless of whether overall functional impact is equivalent (emphasis original)). 

In sum, we hold that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence

on the record as a whole. Wilson’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal.

The order of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2120 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071739