Pandora A. Jackson v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 21, 2026*
Decided April 22, 2026
Before
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2117
PANDORA A. JACKSON
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 24 CV 6075
Jeremy C. Daniel,
Judge.
O R D E R
Pandora Jackson challenges the Social Security Administration’s decision to
recover $10,615 in overpaid supplemental security income. The district judge upheld
the agency’s determination that Jackson had been overpaid in that amount. We affirm.
* After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that
the case is appropriate for summary disposition. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A)
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-2117 Page 2
In 2020 the agency awarded benefits to Jackson after concluding that she had
been disabled for the prior two years. The Social Security Administration soon informed
Jackson that she had been overpaid based on an incorrect benefit calculation. Months
later the agency informed her that she had been overpaid again, this time based on her
receipt of supplemental security income.
A hearing was then held before an administrative law judge, who ultimately
calculated Jackson’s “overpayment balance” at $10,615. In reaching her decision, the
ALJ noted that Jackson had not requested a waiver of repayment, but, in any event, one
was not appropriate because her income was sufficient to cover repayment. The
Appeals Council adopted the ALJ’s findings as to the overpayment but vacated the
findings related to Jackson’s eligibility for a waiver given that she had not requested
one.
Jackson then sought judicial review of the agency’s final ruling. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). The district judge, acknowledging the complex nature of the agency’s
calculations, nevertheless found the ALJ’s figures to be supported by substantial
evidence, see Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102–03 (2019), and upheld the agency’s
determination. The judge reminded Jackson that she could ask the SSA at any time to
waive recovery of the overpayment, but until she did so, neither the agency nor the
court could consider whether it was fair to make her pay back the overpayment.
On appeal Jackson does not address the agency’s finding that she was overpaid,
nor does she make any cogent legal argument that could provide a basis for disturbing
the district court’s judgment. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d
544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). Her appellate brief mostly reproves the law firm that she
says represented her in the administrative proceedings. Counsel, however, is not a
party to this suit. The district judge wrote a thorough opinion reviewing the agency’s
assessment, and we have little to add. We have reviewed the record and agree that
substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jackson was overpaid, on
net, $10,615.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --