NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
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, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 14 cv 7900
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Susan E. Cox,
Defendant‐Appellee. 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.
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.
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.