Sharwani Dyal Deoki v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

SHARWANI DYAL DEOKI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-1252-WFJ-TGW

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. _________________________________/

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Sharwani Dyal Deoki’s (“Deoki”) Brief in Opposition to Defendant Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security’s (the “Commissioner”) decision to deny Social Security disability benefits to Plaintiff Deoki. Dkt. 11. Defendant Commissioner responded with a Brief in Support of the decision, Dkt. 14, and Plaintiff Deoki replied. Dkt. 15. United States Magistrate Judge Porcelli issued a report recommending the decision be affirmed. Dkt. 18. The report is considered unopposed, as no objections have been filed to the report and the time for filing objections has passed. See Local Rules 3.01(d). Upon careful consideration, the Court agrees with Judge Porcelli’s thorough and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions and adopts the report and recommendation. The Court reviews the legal conclusions of the magistrate judge de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th

Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). After an independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783–84 (11th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff Deoki filed a claim for disability insurance benefits with the Social Security Administration, which alleged that she was disabled due to: “Ovarian cancer; Full clinical trail [sic] of Taxol & Carboplatin chemotherapy; Neuropathy

connective tissue disease; Fibromyalgia/Osteoarthritis; Dizziness, nausea, fatigue[.]” Dkt. 5-3 at 3. Plaintiff Deoki was subsequently found “Not Disabled.” Id. at 14. She sought judicial review of this decision, and the administrative law judge

(“ALJ”) found that Plaintiff Deoki had “severe impairments of fibromyalgia and status-post ovarian cancer[,]” Dkt. 5-2 at 20, but retained “the residual functional capacity to perform light work[.]” Id. at 23. Although it was determined that Plaintiff Deoki could not perform any past relevant work, id. at 26, the ALJ found, based on

vocational-expert testimony, that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform and therefore concluded that she was not disabled. Id. at 27. The Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ’s decision the final

decision of the Commissioner. Id. at 1. Plaintiff Deoki then brought the current action, which challenges the final decision primarily on the grounds that the ALJ improperly evaluated the medical

opinion evidence—including the opinions of Dr. Nahesi Lambert-Doorn and treating physician Dr. Julie S. Nusbaum—and improperly considered Plaintiff Deoki’s complaints of fibromyalgia-related symptoms and limitations. See Dkt. 1;

Dkt. 11. The magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions under the applicable regulations. See Dkt. 18 at 6–18. Specifically, it was found that the ALJ “could reasonably find . . . that Dr. Lambert-Doorn’s opinion of

‘moderate limitations’ in walking and prolonged standing [was] consistent with light work[,]” id. at 9, and that “substantial evidence” supported the ALJ’s “rejection of Dr. Nusbaum’s opinion of extreme functional limitations[.]” Id. at 17. The

magistrate judge further found that the ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s “history of conservative treatment, . . . non-compliance with the prescribed treatment, daily activities, normal examination findings, and the opinions of three physicians” in evaluating her subjective complaints. Id. at 13–18 (focusing on the

ALJ’s consideration of certain evidence); id. at 18–24 (focusing on the ALJ’s considerations in light of Plaintiff Deoki’s subjective complaints). Overall, it was determined that the reasons provided by the ALJ were “adequate and supported by

substantial evidence[,]” and thus, “this court is not authorized to overturn the [ALJ’s] credibility determination.” Id. at 43 (citing Arnold v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 881, 883–84 (11th Cir. 1984)).

For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 18, is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED,

and APPROVED, and is incorporated herein; 2. The decision of Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security to deny Social Security disability benefits to Plaintiff Sharwani Dyal Deoki is AFFIRMED; and

3. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Commissioner and close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 18, 2026.

/s/ William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record