Jeanette Stephens v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 12, 2016*
Decided December 13, 2016
Before
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 16-2254
JEANETTE STEPHENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 14 C 3117
Jeffrey T. Gilbert,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Jeannette Stephens appeals from the district court’s judgment upholding the
Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance
Benefits. She argues that her application should be reevaluated because an
administrative law judge later found her disabled based on a separate application she
* We have unanimously agreed to decide this 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. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 16-2254 Page 2
filed. But Stephens never apprised the district court of the later finding, let alone sought
a timely reassessment of the denial of benefits, so we affirm.
In September 2010, Stephens first applied for disability benefits based on several
conditions that included lumbar pain, depression, asthma, sleep apnea, and forearm
strain. The Social Security Administration denied her application both initially and
upon reconsideration. Some time later, assisted by counsel, she had a hearing before
ALJ Lee Lewin. On November 20, 2012, ALJ Lewin concluded that Stephens was not
disabled. The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision.
In April 2014 Stephens, represented by new counsel, sought judicial review.
Stephens contended that ALJ Lewin erred by (1) not sufficiently accounting for the
opinion of her treating physician, (2) rejecting all medical opinions in favor of the ALJ’s
own lay opinion, and (3) failing to account for all of her limitations when computing her
residual functional capacity.
Around that same time, Stephens filed a second application for disability benefits
with the Social Security Administration. (This application is not included in the record,
but presumably was based on more recent medical documents than those included in
the prior application.) The agency again initially denied benefits to Stephens, but this
time after a hearing a different ALJ (William Spalo) found her disabled as of
November 21, 2012 (just one day after ALJ Lewin had found Stephens not disabled)
based on the Medical–Vocational Guidelines, and thus entitled to benefits.
Even though Stephens’s first application was still pending in the district court at
the time ALJ Spalo found her disabled, Stephens never informed the court of the
favorable ruling. Magistrate Judge Gilbert (to whom both parties consented to conduct
all proceedings in the case) reviewed only the denial of Stephens’s first application, and
concluded that substantial evidence supported ALJ Lewin’s ruling. As Magistrate Judge
Gilbert explained, the ALJ proffered legitimate reasons for discounting the treating
physician’s opinion, gave proper weight to the medical opinions, and correctly
accounted for Stephens’s limitations when determining her Residual Functional
Capacity.
Stephens, now proceeding pro se, argues that ALJ Spalo’s finding of disability
undercuts ALJ Lewin’s finding in this case that she was not disabled through
November 2012. But Stephens does not pinpoint any errors in the decision of either ALJ
Lewin or Magistrate Judge Gilbert.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 16-2254 Page 3
Stephens could have asked for a reassessment of ALJ Lewin’s decision based on
ALJ Spalo’s favorable finding, either under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (“newly
discovered evidence”) or sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (allowing for remand based
on new and material evidence, as long as she could show “good cause” for failing to
incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding); Melkonyan v. Sullivan,
501 U.S. 89, 98–99 (1991), but she waived these arguments by failing to raise them in the
district court. See Schomas v. Colvin, 732 F.3d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 2013). In any event,
Stephens may not introduce ALJ Spalo’s disability finding as “new evidence” here
because she has not shown good cause for previously failing to introduce it in the
district court. Veal v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 693, 699–700 (7th Cir. 1987) (deciding in
procedurally analogous case, where claimant tried to introduce evidence of later finding
of disability in appellate court even though finding had been available while case was
pending in district court, that she failed to show good cause for not supplementing the
record earlier); see also Midwest Fence Corp. v. United States Dep't of Transp., No. 15-1827,
2016 WL 6543514, at *10 (7th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016).
Stephens also restates the three issues that she raised in the district court, but she
does not develop any challenge to the court’s handling of them, nor does she cite to
legal authority or the record in support. See F ED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(8); Long v. Teachers' Ret.
Sys. of Ill., 585 F.3d 344, 349 (7th Cir. 2009); Jones v. InfoCure Corp., 310 F.3d 529, 534
(7th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --