Cuminale v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 39

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; REMANDING MATTER: Adopting 36 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED; Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED; Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling. Any pending Motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Closing Case. Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 11/19/2021. See attached document for full details. (jao)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-61004-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW

MICHAEL CUMINALE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANDREW M. SAUL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING
OBJECTIONS; REMANDING MATTER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Snow (the “Report”) [DE 36], filed herein on October 15, 2021. The Court has conducted a
de novo review of the Report [DE 36], has carefully considered Defendant’s Objections [DE 37],
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Objections [DE 38], and is otherwise fully advised in the
premises.
I.

BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits on September 23, 2015, alleging
disability since September 10, 2015, as a result of back pain and other ailments. The application
was denied initially and upon reconsideration. The Plaintiff then requested a hearing, which was
held before Administrative Law Judge James Andres on November 6, 2017. The Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act. The Appeals Council remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. A
1

second administrative hearing was held before Judge Andres on April 15, 2019, after which the
ALJ again found that the Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied the Plaintiff's
request for review on March 24, 2020. Plaintiff then filed this action on May 21, 2020, seeking
judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner.
On June 14, 2021, Magistrate Judge Snow issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 25] be denied and
that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. See [DE 28]. In her Report,
Magistrate Judge Snow explained the reasons that the ALJ gave greater or lesser weight to
different portions of the Plaintiff’s treating physicians’ opinions. See [DE 28]. Upon review of
the record, the Court agreed with the reasoning, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge. See [DE 30].
However, as the Court noted in its September 7, 2021, Order, Plaintiff raised for the first
time in this case – as Part II to his Objections to the Report and Recommendation – that Plaintiff’s
case should have been reassigned to a properly appointed ALJ under the Appointments Clause of
the United States Constitution, relying on the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Carr
v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021), which he argues implicates his constitutional rights. See [DE’s 29,
30]. Plaintiff contended that the interests of justice require that either this Court rule on this
constitutional issue or that the case be recommitted to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to
take further briefing on this issue. See [DE 29]. As this issue was not presented to the Magistrate
Judge, had not been briefed, and had not been addressed by Defendant, the Court agreed with
Plaintiff that the case should be recommitted to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to take
further briefing on this issue. See [DE 30].
Accordingly, in its September 7, 2021 Order, the Court approved the Magistrate Judge’s
2

Report and Recommendation [DE 28]; overruled Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 29] as to Part I of the
Objections, which addressed the Report and Recommendation and the underlying summary
judgment motions; granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 21]; denied
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 25]; and referred this case back to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions to take further briefing and for a report and recommendation on
the issue raised in Part II of Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation – that
Plaintiff’s case should have been reassigned to a properly appointed ALJ under the Appointments
Clause of the United States Constitution pursuant to Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021). See [DE
30]. Subsequently, Defendant filed his Response to the Plaintiff's Objections [DE 32] and
Plaintiff filed a Reply [DE 35].
On October 15, 2021, Magistrate Judge Snow issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part, that Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner
for reassignment to a different ALJ. See [DE 36].
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United
States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions
of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for
objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones,
863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not
a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5,
7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and
recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to
3

which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly,
the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and the Plaintiff’s objections.
III.

DISCUSSION

The Magistrate Judge, after analyzing the parties’ arguments, recommends that the
appropriate remedy in this case is that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner for
reassignment to a different ALJ.. See [DE 36]. Defendant objects, arguing that the ALJ’s
decision should be affirmed because at all times relevant to the ALJ’s July 16, 2019 decision, the
ALJ had been properly appointed by the Commissioner of Social Security, and therefore, the fact
that the ALJ was not properly appointed when Plaintiff previously appeared before that same ALJ
in his 2017 original administrative hearing is not relevant, as the ALJ’s prior 2018 decision was
vacated by the Appeals Council. See [DE 37]. The Court overrules Defendant’s Objection. The
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion that, in order to cure the
constitutional deficiency, Plaintiff’s case had to be assigned to a different ALJ. See [DE 36] at p. 5.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 36] is hereby APPROVED;

2.

Defendant’s Objections [DE 37] are hereby OVERRULED;

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED;

4.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED;

5.

This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for reassignment to a different
ALJ.
4

6. The Clerk shall close this case and deny any pending motions as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this
19th day of November, 2021.

Copies furnished to:
Magistrate Judge Snow
Counsel of record

5