232 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 752 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and that the correct legal standard was applied.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred by failing to identify and resolve an apparent conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles regarding the ticket seller job, and that the error was not harmless.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and that the correct legal standard was applied.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in assessing the claimant's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) by failing to adequately consider the impact of her severe impairments, specifically lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and headaches.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards, and therefore affirmed the Commissioner's decision.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred by failing to give a fresh look to new evidence regarding the plaintiff's past relevant work and by not providing sufficient reasoning for adopting prior findings.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, holding that the ALJ did not err by failing to analyze or discuss the mental health counselor's statements as medical opinions, and that any potential error was harmless.
-
The court held that the ALJ's finding regarding the claimant's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) was supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ did not err in failing to order further consultative examinations or expert testimony.
-
The court held that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff's subjective complaints were inconsistent with his activities of daily living, warranting remand.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred in affording little weight to the opinions of treating physicians Dr. Olsson and Dr. Weiss, and that the case must be remanded for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred by failing to identify and resolve an apparent conflict between the claimant's RFC and the requirements of the 'document preparer' job, and that the ALJ's collective analysis of job numbers was insufficient.
-
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
-
The State appealed an order suppressing evidence found in a motel room. The trial court suppressed the evidence, finding officers violated Florida's knock-and-announce statute. The appellate court reversed, holding the statute does not apply when officers enter a room with an ope
-
The court held that the ALJ's RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it failed to adequately consider the episodic and unpredictable nature of the claimant's PTSD, and the Appeals Council erred in rejecting a relevant medical report.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2023-08-09
The appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration, finding that a homeowner (Sadie's) was bound by an arbitration clause in a tile manufacturer's (SISIS) warranty agreement with the general contractor (Galvas). The court held that the homeowner
-
The court held that the ALJ erred in failing to properly consider the supportability and consistency of the treating physician's lifting restriction and in its consideration of the claimant's subjective complaints, warranting remand.
-
The court held that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standard.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ's assessment of the plaintiff's mental residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ adequately analyzed medical opinions based on proper legal standards and substantial evidence.
-
The court held that the ALJ's decision denying SSI benefits was not based on substantial evidence and failed to employ proper legal standards regarding the consideration of medical opinions.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in evaluating the claimant's fibromyalgia and subjective complaints, failing to comply with Social Security Administration rulings and adequately consider the evidence.
-
The court held that the ALJ's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standard.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in substituting her own assessment for that of medical consultants regarding the claimant's residual functional capacity, as substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and that the correct legal standard was applied.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled and could perform her past relevant work.
-
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted the Commissioner's motion.
-
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting Defendant's motion for costs in part and denying it in part.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ properly considered the plaintiff's fluctuating symptoms and adequately evaluated medical opinions.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, reversing and remanding the Commissioner's decision.
-
The court granted the Petitioners' Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment of Exoneration.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision denying Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards, and therefore affirmed the Commissioner's decision.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, approving the parties' settlement agreement.
-
The court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the defendant sheriff's motion to sever or bifurcate the trial.
-
The court held that the Appeals Council erred by relying exclusively on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines without sufficient analysis of how the claimant's non-exertional limitations affected the occupational base, thus failing to develop a full and fair record.
-
The Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is affirmed because it is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.
-
The court held that the ALJ's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard was applied.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred by failing to identify and resolve an apparent conflict between the claimant's RFC limitation to simple, routine tasks and the reasoning level required for the mail clerk job, and that remand was necessary for further fact-finding on whether the
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly evaluated the persuasiveness of the plaintiff's doctor's opinion by considering the supportability and consistency factors, and that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ's evaluation of medical opinions supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard.
-
The Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is affirmed because the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards, adequately articulating reasons for discounting the claimant's subjective symptom testimony.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ applied the correct legal standard.
-
The appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a petition to modify alimony because the trial court failed to make necessary factual findings regarding the payor's income at the time of the last alimony order. The court affirmed a separate order regarding attorney's fees.
-
The display and loading of a firearm constitutes non-deadly force as a matter of law, and Burns was entitled to immunity from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground law because he lawfully displayed his firearm on his home property while confronting trespassers who had ref
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment.
-
The court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Sheriff is entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-suit notice requirements of Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)(a).
-
The court accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the matter for further proceedings.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, awarding damages, attorney's fees, and costs.