Tayyem v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting 19 Report and Recommendations Closing Case. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 3/12/2025. See attached document for full details. (cqs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 24-cv-21149-BLOOM/Elfenbein
AGNES BERNADETEA TAYYEM,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF
No. [12], and Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [16]. The Motions were
referred to the Honorable Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein for Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”). See ECF No. [11]. On February 5, 2025, Judge Elfenbein issued an R&R,
recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) Decision be
affirmed. ECF No. [19]. In the R&R, Judge Elfenbein advised the parties that they have fourteen
days to file any objections to the findings and recommendations with the District Court. Id. at 35.
Plaintiff timely filed her Objections on February 19, 2025. ECF No. [20]. The Court has
reviewed the Motions, the record, Plaintiff’s Objections, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled and the Court adopts the R&R in
full.
I.

BACKGROUND

The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case and adopts the

Case No. 24-cv-21149-BLOOM/Elfenbein
procedural history contained in the R&R. ECF No. [19] 2-5. The following background provides
only the facts necessary to analyze the R&R and address Plaintiff’s objections.
On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed this appeal of a final administrative decision denying
Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. ECF No. [1] ¶¶ 1-2. On
August 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which she argued the ALJ
failed to properly evaluate the opinion of “Plaintiff’s primary therapist Dorothy Maengei,
LCSW,” leading to a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination which Plaintiff
contends is “improper and unsupported by substantial evidence.” ECF No. [12] at 10, 12. On
October 4, 2024, Defendant filed a separate Motion for Summary Judgment in which Defendant
argued “substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings that Dr. Maengei’s findings were both
unsupported by her own records and inconsistent with the rest of the record[.]” ECF No. [16] at
2.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party
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)) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting
legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). The portions of the R&R to which an objection is
made are reviewed de novo only if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party
disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge’s report, those
portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; see also Liberty Am. Ins.
Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001).
2

Case No. 24-cv-21149-BLOOM/Elfenbein
“It is improper for an objecting party to . . . [submit] papers to a district court which are
nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers
submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the
apple’ when they file objections to a R & R.” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-cv-23641, 2012
WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors-Rate Emps.
Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). A court, in its discretion, need not
consider arguments that were not, in the first instance, presented to the magistrate judge.
Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). A district court may accept, reject, or
modify a magistrate judge’s R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff objects to “the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly evaluated the
medical opinion of Dorthy Maengei, LSCW.” ECF No. [20] at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff suggests
the ALJ and Judge Elfenbein improperly considered Plaintiff’s part-time work in their analyses.
Plaintiff argues the fact that she “was able to sustain part-time work fails to establish that
Plaintiff would be capable of full-time work, which the SSA requires to avoid the finding of
disability[.]” Id. at 2 (citing Beard v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 4:23-cv-00874, 2024 WL
4216634, at *5 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 17, 2024)). Therefore, Plaintiff argues, the ALJ should not have
found Maengei’s opinion inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reported part-time work activity and that
Judge Elfenbein’s R&R affirming the ALJ should be rejected. ECF No. [20] at 1-2.
Plaintiff misunderstands the ALJ’s and Judge Elfenbein’s analyses. They cited Plaintiff’s
part-time work not as evidence that Plaintiff was necessarily capable of full-time work, but in
order to demonstrate that “Plaintiff’s level of functionality evidenced by her work activities is
inconsistent with the level of impairment that Maengei assessed.” ECF No. [19] at 31 (citing No.
[6-1] at 21). Indeed, the ALJ explicitly noted that Plaintiff’s “work activity as a fast food worker
3

Case No. 24-cv-21149-BLOOM/Elfenbein
and concession vendor thorugh 2022” was “not disqualifying substantial gainful activity,” but
instead “indicate[d] that the claimant’s functionality is inconsistent with the level of impairment
opined by . . . Maengei.” ECF No. [6-1] at 21. As Judge Elfenbein noted, “Maengei opined
Plaintiff had ‘extreme’ limitations in eighteen of the twenty-two areas” in which Maengei
evaluated Plaintiff. ECF No. [19] at 29 (citing ECF No. [6] at 905-07). However, the instructions
on the form Maengei used to evaluate Plaintiff state that a person has an extreme limitation if she
is “not able to function in this area independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained
basis.” Id. Furthermore, “[a]n ‘extreme’ impairment is very severe and will not apply to most
patients.” Id. “Plaintiff’s own testimony is evidence that, at least as to some jobs, she did not lose
them because her mental limitations prevented her from successfully completing tasks but rather
because of other, unrelated reasons” such as “‘not having reliable transportation and not
reporting to work on time; termination because someone lied about’ her; ‘or missing work to
take her child to therapy or attend therapy herself.’” Id. at 32 (quoting ECF No. [6-1] at 21).
Therefore, Judge Elfenbein correctly noted that Plaintiff’s employment history contradicted
Maengei’s assessment of Plaintiff. Id. at 31-32.
Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ provided “no explanation . . . for why . . . Maengei’s
explanations did not support the opinion.” ECF No. [20] at 3. ALJs “evaluate the persuasiveness
of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings” based on “supportability,”
“consistency,” “relationship with the claimant,” “specialization,” and “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §
416.920c(a), (c). Although Judge Elfenbein “has provided [her] reasons for why the opinion was
allegedly unsupported,” Plaintiff states “those [reasons] were nothing more than post-hoc
rationalization where the ALJ did not provide that explanation” herself. ECF No. [20] at 3.
Therefore, the ALJ’s “failure to offer a supportability analysis was an error that warranted
automatic remand[.]” Id.
4

Case No. 24-cv-21149-BLOOM/Elfenbein
Although it is true that a court “cannot affirm based on a post hoc rationale that ‘might
have supported the ALJ’s conclusion,” Judge Elfenbein’s analysis directly tracks that of the ALJ.
ECF No. [20] at 3 (quoting Watkins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 457 F. App’x 868, 872 (11th Cir.
2012).

The ALJ stated Maengei’s opinion is “inconsisitent with and unsupported by the

claimant’s work activity since the alleged disability onset date, as she frequently reported she
was working at McDonald’s.” ECF No. [6-1] at 21. The ALJ then stated that although Plaintiff’s
part-time work was “not disqualifying substantial gainful activity, this work activity indicates
that the claimant’s functionality is inconsistent with the level of impairment opined by . . .
Maengei.” Id. As Judge Elfenbein noted, it is unclear what further analysis the ALJ could have
conducted given that “the record contains no source documents created during Maengei’s
treatment of Plaintiff, which explains why the ALJ did not mention any primary examination or
medical records she looked to when finding that Maengei’s opinion was unsupported.” ECF No.
[19] at 33. “The ALJ could not refer to what was not there.”Therefore, Judge Elfenbein properly
affirmed the ALJ’s decision.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The R&R, ECF No. [19], is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF No. [20], are OVERRULED;
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [12], is DENIED;
4. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [16] is GRANTED;
5. The ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED;
6. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

5

Case No. 24-cv-21149-BLOOM/Elfenbein
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida on March 12, 2025.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

6