# Rosario

> District Court, M.D. Florida · March 26, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11363864

## Case

- **Full name:** Delaizarah Zgraggen Rosario v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** March 26, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11363864

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

DELAIZARAH ZGRAGGEN
ROSARIO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:24-cv-90-JRK

FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security,1

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER2
I. Status
Delaizarah Zgraggen Rosario (“Plaintiff”) is appealing the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA(’s)”) final decision denying her
claim for supplemental security income (“SSI”). Plaintiff’s alleged inability to
work is the result of mental issues including bipolar and anxiety disorders and
physical issues including injuries to her neck and back. Transcript of

1 Frank Bisignano is now the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule
25(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Bisignano should be substituted as Defendant in
this suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence
of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
2 The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States
Magistrate Judge. See Order Regarding Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction in Social
Security Appeals (Doc. No. 117), Case No. 3:21-mc-1-TJC (outlining procedures for consent
and Defendant’s generalized consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in social security
appeals cases); consent by Plaintiff indicated in docket language for Complaint (Doc. No. 1).
Administrative Proceedings (Doc. No. 9; “Tr.” or “administrative transcript”),

filed March 21, 2025, at 216, 241, 735. 3 Plaintiff protectively filed an
application for SSI on February 14, 2011, alleging a disability onset date of July
27, 2008.4 Tr. at 662-70. The application was denied initially, Tr. at 216-26,
228, 380, 381-86, and upon reconsideration, Tr. at 230, 241-54, 395, 396-400.5

On July 8, 2013, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing,
during which Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel; Plaintiff’s neighbor;
and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. Tr. at 134-71. On November 29, 2013,

the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled since the date the SSI
application was filed. See Tr. at 258-75.
Thereafter, on December 18, 2014, the Appeals Council granted review.
Tr. at 430-34. On May 13, 2015, the Appeals Council issued a final unfavorable

decision and dismissal. Tr. at 197-203. Plaintiff appealed the Appeals Council’s
decision to this Court, and on June 21, 2016, the Court entered an Order

3 Some documents are duplicated in the administrative transcript. Citations are
to the first time a document appears.
4 Although the SSI application was actually filed on June 24, 2011, Tr. at 662,
the protective filing date is listed elsewhere in the administrative transcript as February 14,
2011, Tr. at 216, 241.
5 The administrative transcript also reflects initial and reconsideration denials
of a claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) filed around the same time as the SSI claim.
Tr. at 205-15, 227, 229, 231-40, 389, 390-94. This DIB claim was eventually dismissed under
the doctrine of res judicata. Tr. at 258-59; see also Tr. at 280-96 (adjudicating an earlier-filed
DIB claim), 316-36 (this Court affirming the adjudication of the earlier-filed claim), 340-46
(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirming). Accordingly, the DIB claim is not
at issue here.
reversing and remanding the Commissioner’s final decision. Tr. at 172-73; see
Tr. at 174-85 (Report and Recommendation).

On remand, the Appeals Council remanded the matter back to an ALJ to
take action consistent with the Court’s Order. See Tr. at 351. On July 10, 2017,
another ALJ held a hearing, during which Plaintiff and a VE testified. Tr. at
2076-2103. On October 17, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was

not disabled since the date the SSI application was filed. Tr. at 351-68.
Plaintiff appealed the final decision to this Court, and on October 25,
2018, the Court entered an Order reversing and remanding the Commissioner’s
final decision. Tr. at 187-88; see also Tr. at 190 (Judgment). On remand, the

Appeals Council on November 26, 2018 remanded the matter back to an ALJ
consistent with the Court’s Order. Tr. at 194, 494.
Plaintiff attended hearings before another ALJ on August 13, 2019,6

January 25, 2022, and May 10, 2022, in each, the ALJ taking testimony from
Plaintiff (who remained represented by counsel) and in the first and last
hearings, from a VE. Tr. at 42-77 (May 10, 2022 hearing), 78-85 (January 25,
2022 hearing), 86-133 (August 13, 2019 hearing).7 On February 20, 2023, the

6 Prior to this hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel sent the ALJ letters containing requests
that the claims files be merged. Tr. at 507, 847.
7 The latter two hearings were held via videoconference with Plaintiff’s consent.
Tr. at 44, 80. In the January 2022 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel only appeared via telephone
because of technical issues. Tr. at 80.
ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled since the date the SSI
application was filed. Tr. at 4-30.

Plaintiff appealed to this Court. Tr. at 2217-20. On June 27, 2024, this
Court entered an Opinion and Order reversing and remanding the
Commissioner’s final decision for further proceedings. Tr. at 2221-37; see also
Tr. at 2238 (Judgment). On remand, the Appeals Council on July 31, 2024

remanded the matter to an ALJ for further proceedings consistent with the
Court’s Order. Tr. at 2242. The Council noted that Plaintiff had filed another
claim for SSI on August 31, 2023. Tr. at 2242. So, the ALJ was directed to
“consolidate the claim files, associate the evidence, and issue a new decision on

the consolidated claims.” Tr. at 2242; see Tr. at 2502-11 (2023 SSI claim8).
The ALJ held a hearing on September 5, 2024,9 taking testimony from
Plaintiff and a VE. Tr. at 2148-75. The ALJ then issued a Decision on September

23, 2024, finding Plaintiff was not disabled since February 14, 2011, the date
the SSI application was filed. Tr. at 2107-33. The Appeals Council declined
jurisdiction. On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this action under 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), as incorporated by § 1383(c)(3), by timely filing a Complaint

(Doc. No. 1), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision.

8 The claim is dated July 15, 2023 but received by the SSA August 18, 2023. Tr.
at 2502, 2511. In this claim, Plaintiff alleges a litany of impairments that allegedly make her
disabled. See Tr. at 2542.
9 The hearing was held via telephone with Plaintiff’s consent. Tr. at 2150-51.
On appeal, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by “fail[ing] to comply with the
Appeals Council’s remand order dated July 31, 2024.” Plaintiff’s Brief (Doc. No.

16; “Pl.’s Br.”), filed May 20, 2025, at 7 (emphasis and some capitalization
omitted). On July 7, 2025, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s argument by filing
a Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner’s Decision (Doc. No. 20; “Def.’s
Mem.”). After a thorough review of the entire record and consideration of the

parties’ respective arguments, the undersigned finds that the Commissioner’s
final decision is due to be affirmed.
II. The ALJ’s Decision

When determining whether an individual is disabled,10 an ALJ must
follow the five-step sequential inquiry set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations (“Regulations”), determining as appropriate whether the claimant
(1) is currently employed or engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a

severe impairment; (3) has an impairment or combination of impairments that
meets or medically equals one listed in the Regulations; (4) can perform past
relevant work; and (5) retains the ability to perform any work in the national
economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Simon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7

10 “Disability” is defined in the Social Security Act as the “inability to engage in
any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected
to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A).
F.4th 1094, 1101-02 (11th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted); Phillips v. Barnhart,
357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004). The claimant bears the burden of

persuasion through step four, and at step five, the burden shifts to the
Commissioner. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).
Here, the ALJ followed the five-step sequential inquiry. See Tr. at 2110-
33. At step one, the ALJ determined Plaintiff “has not engaged in substantial

gainful activity since February 14, 2011, the application date.” Tr. at 2110
(emphasis and citation omitted). At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “has
the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the cervical
spine, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine, obesity, left carpal tunnel syndrome,
gastroesophageal reflux disease, diverticulosis, nephrolithiasis and ureter
stricture, peripheral neuropathy, migraines, a generalized anxiety disorder, a

panic disorder, a bipolar disorder/depressive disorder, and posttraumatic stress
disorder.” Tr. at 2110 (emphasis and citation omitted). At step three, the ALJ
ascertained that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 [C.F.R.] Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” Tr. at 2111

(emphasis and citation omitted).
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the following residual capacity
(“RFC”):
[Plaintiff can] perform less than the full range of light
work as defined in 20 CFR [§] 416.967(b). She can lift,
carry, push, and/or pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10
pounds frequently. She can stand and/or walk, with
normal breaks, for a total of four hours in an eight-hour
workday. She can sit, with normal breaks, for a total of
six hours in an eight-hour workday. She can never
operate foot controls. She can frequently push and pull
within the weight ranges described. She can
occasionally balance on uneven terrain; occasionally
stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs.
She can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She
can frequently reach, handle and finger bilaterally. She
can tolerate no more than occasional exposure to
temperatures under forty degrees Fahrenheit and
above ninety degrees Fahrenheit. She can have no
concentrated exposure to vibration or pulmonary
irritants such as fumes, odors, dusts, noxious gases,
and areas of poor ventilation. She can tolerate no
exposure to unprotected heights or dangerous moving
machinery. She can perform simple work tasks with
occasional interaction with the public, coworkers, and
supervisors.
Tr. at 2113-14 (emphasis omitted).
At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “has no past relevant work.” Tr.
at 2131 (some emphasis and citation omitted). At the fifth and final step of the
sequential inquiry, after considering Plaintiff’s age (“37 years old . . . on the
date the application was filed”), education (“at least a high school education”),
lack of work experience, and RFC, the ALJ relied on the VE’s testimony and
found “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that [Plaintiff] can perform,” Tr. at 2132 (emphasis and citation omitted), such
as “assembler, small products I,” “electronics worker,” and “assembler,
electrical accessories I,” Tr. at 2132. The ALJ concluded Plaintiff “has not been
under a disability . . . since February 14, 2011, the date the application was
filed.” Tr. at 2133 (emphasis and citation omitted).

III. Standard of Review

This Court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision as to disability
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Although no deference is given
to the ALJ’s conclusions of law, findings of fact “are conclusive if . . . supported
by ‘substantial evidence.’” Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir.
2001) (citing Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320, 1322 (11th Cir. 1998)). “Substantial
evidence is something ‘more than a mere scintilla, but less than a
preponderance.’” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)

(quoting Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987)). The substantial
evidence standard is met when there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Falge, 150 F.3d at 1322
(quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)); see also Biestek v.

Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019); Samuels v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 959
F.3d 1042, 1045 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). It is not for this Court to
reweigh the evidence; rather, the entire record is reviewed to determine
whether “the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial

evidence.” Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145 (11th Cir. 1991) (citation
omitted). The decision reached by the Commissioner must be affirmed if it is
supported by substantial evidence—even if the evidence preponderates against
the Commissioner’s findings. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155,
1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

IV. Discussion
Plaintiff argues solely that the ALJ erred in “failing to comply with the
Appeals Council’s remand order” that instructed the ALJ to consolidate the
original 2011 SSI claim with the subsequently-filed 2023 SSI claim, associate

the evidence, and issue a decision on the consolidated claims. Pl.’s Br. at 7
(emphasis and some capitalization omitted); see also Tr. at 2242 (Appeals
Council instructions). Plaintiff concedes that the certified administrative
transcript contains her 2023 SSI application but contends the ALJ did not

actually follow the Appeals Council’s instructions because nine days after the
ALJ authored the Decision at issue, Plaintiff received from the SSA a Notice of
Disapproved Claim on her 2023 SSI application (“2023 Denial Notice”). Id. at 8-
9; see id. at App’x 4. According to Plaintiff, this 2023 Denial Notice relies upon

certain evidence that may or may not be in the administrative transcript and
demonstrates that the ALJ erred in failing to render a decision on both claims.
Id. at 8-10.
Responding, Defendant argues the ALJ “expressly recited the Appeals

Council’s directive in her [D]ecision and issued a [D]ecision for a period that
encompassed both claims.” Def.’s Mem. at 1. Defendant contends Plaintiff is
speculating that the ALJ may not have considered certain evidence and cannot
demonstrate any prejudice. Id. at 1, 5-11. In any event, Defendant points out
that Plaintiff’s counsel assured the ALJ that the record was complete at the last

hearing, so if there was any error, Defendant argues it was invited. Id.
It is undisputed that the ALJ was obligated to follow the Appeals
Council’s directive to consolidate the 2011 and 2023 SSI claims, associate the
evidence, and issue a new decision on both claims. See Tr. at 2242. It is also

undisputed that the 2023 SSI claim appears in the administrative transcript.
See Tr. at 2502-11. At the September 5, 2024 hearing, the ALJ specifically
referenced the directive of the Appeals Council to consolidate the subsequently-
filed claim. Tr. at 2151-52. The ALJ then stated: “That evidence has been

consolidated, and so I will be making a decision on that application as well.” Tr.
at 2152. Soon afterwards, the ALJ asked Plaintiff’s counsel if he had “had an
opportunity to review the record in the case,” to which counsel responded, “Yes.
I have.” Tr. at 2152. Asked by the ALJ if the record was complete, counsel

stated, “Yes, it is.” Tr. at 2152. Then, the Decision was issued. In it, the ALJ
again referenced the Appeals Council’s directive to consolidate the claims, Tr.
at 2107, evidencing an understanding and a purported following of the
instruction.

On this record, the undersigned cannot conclude that the ALJ failed to
follow the Appeals Council’s directive. And, even if the ALJ somehow failed to
associate some of the evidence, the error was invited. The ALJ specifically asked
Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm whether the record was complete in light of the
directive to associate the claims—counsel confirmed that it was. See Larry v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 506 F. App’x 967, 969 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Ford v.
Garcia, 289 F.3d 1283, 1293-94 (11th Cir. 2002)) (after an attorney confirmed
that the record was complete when asked by an ALJ, finding that “any alleged
error the ALJ may have made in not obtaining more recent medical records was

invited”).
It is perplexing that the SSA sent Plaintiff the 2023 Denial Notice after
the ALJ’s Decision was rendered, which is not part of the administrative
transcript. See Pl.’s Br. at App’x 4. Defendant contends it “appears to have been

sent in error by the agency, as the ALJ had, nine days prior, issued a [D]ecision
on the consolidated SSI claims.” Def.’s Mem. at 7. If the ALJ’s Decision indeed
encompasses both claims, then this 2023 Denial Notice does appear to have
been sent in error. Plaintiff argues it is indicative of the current administrative

transcript being incomplete because, according to the 2023 Denial Notice, three
categories of evidence were used to decide Plaintiff’s 2023 SSI claim, see Pl.’s
Br. at App’x 4, and “it is unclear if these records were before the ALJ,” see id.
at 9. But, again, Plaintiff’s counsel assured the ALJ that the record was

complete. If any of these categories of evidence are not included in the
administrative transcript, the error was invited. See Larry, 506 F. App’x at 969.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated clear prejudice by any failure to
consider this evidence. See Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.8d 9381, 934 (quotation and
citation omitted) (11th Cir. 1995) (“In evaluating the necessity for a remand, we

are guided by whether the record reveals evidentiary gaps which result in
unfairness or clear prejudice.”).
V. Conclusion
The ALJ’s Decision is supported by substantial evidence. In light of the
foregoing, it is
ORDERED:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as incorporated by § 18838(c)(3),
AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s final decision.
2. The Clerk is further directed to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on March 26, 2026.

ama. K. KAS
JAMES R. KLINDT
United States Magistrate Judge

kaw
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-12-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11363864. Public record. Not legal advice.