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 the ALJ's RFC determination and evaluation of medical opinions were supported by substantial evidence.
-
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) properly considered the claimant's credibility and subjective complaints, and the decision denying disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's Petition for EAJA Fees.
-
The court held that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is not required to base a Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) finding solely on a physician's opinion and may properly evaluate all evidence to determine RFC.
-
Fla. 3d DCA·
2023-04-05
The court reversed a lower court's decision compelling arbitration, finding that the police officer had waived his right to arbitrate a grievance by previously litigating the same issue. This decision clarifies that pursuing litigation on an issue precludes subsequent arbitration
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ properly applied legal standards to medical opinions and that the ALJ was properly appointed for the relevant hearing.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting the Receiver's motion for an interim distribution and overruling objections.
-
357 So. 3d 1266·
Fla. 3d DCA·
2023-03-15
The appellate court reversed a trial court's order that denied a father's motion to vacate a previous order. The trial court had adopted a general magistrate's report without holding a hearing on the father's timely filed exceptions, which the appellate court found to be a violat
-
The Court accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's decision.
-
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 new medical evidence discovered after the ALJ's decision warrants remand under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because it is new, material, and there is good cause for its late submission.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred in failing to identify and resolve apparent conflicts between the RFC and certain jobs identified by the vocational expert, and that the case must be remanded for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred in affording little weight to the treating physician's opinion without sufficient good cause, warranting reversal and remand.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in denying disability benefits, as the decision was supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the ALJ's determination of the claimant's residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ applied the correct legal standard.
-
The court held that the Commissioner's final decision denying disability benefits is reversed and remanded because the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record by not translating crucial medical documents from Spanish.
-
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 denying disability benefits, finding the ALJ's decision supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred in affording little weight to Dr. Freedman's opinion regarding the need for an assistive device, as substantial evidence did not support this decision. The court also found that the ALJ's RFC determination was impacted by this error.
-
The court held that the ALJ's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standard.
-
The Appeals Council erred in refusing to consider new, material, and chronologically relevant medical evidence, requiring reversal and remand.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees.
-
The court held that while the plaintiff is a prevailing party entitled to fees, the fee award must be reduced to account for the significant disparity between damages sought and awarded.
-
The court held that the ALJ's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards, specifically regarding the assessment of a treating psychologist's opinion.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, awarding $5,805 in attorney's fees and denying fees for the prior class action litigation.
-
The court denied the Secretary of Labor's motion for default judgment and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing the Secretary to amend the complaint.
-
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to award attorneys' fees.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and that the correct legal standards were applied.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly considered the claimant's subjective complaints and the medical evidence, and that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision denying disability benefits.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in part.
-
The court reversed a decision denying Medicaid benefits, holding that the cash value of life insurance policies assigned to the applicant's son should not have been counted as an asset. The assignment was effective upon execution, regardless of the insurance company's delay in pr
-
The court held that the Appeals Council erred in failing to consider new medical evidence that was new, material, and chronologically relevant to the period at issue.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the Commissioner's motion for remand.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
-
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting the Commissioner's unopposed motion and remanding the case.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs.
-
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting Defendant's motion.
-
The Court accepts in part and rejects in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing the First Amended Complaint with prejudice.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ's determination supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards.
-
The court held that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to adequately explain the consideration of supportability and consistency factors when evaluating a medical opinion, thus the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
-
The court held that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard was applied.
-
The court held that the ALJ erred in evaluating the treating physician's opinion regarding fibromyalgia due to misapplication of new regulations and misunderstanding of the nature of the impairment.
-
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 Commissioner's decision denying supplemental security income benefits was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standard.
-
The court held that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence, and any errors regarding specific job numbers were harmless.
-
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards, and overruled the plaintiff's objections.
-
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the defendants' motion for taxation of costs.