Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

Page 1 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BRANDAN TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:24-cv-602-TKW-MJF
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Brandan Taylor brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
to seek review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration. Because the Commissioner applied the
proper legal standards, and the decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the District Court should affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY
On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits
and alleged that he became disabled on April 4, 2023. Tr. 96.1 The Social
1 All references to “Tr.” refer to the transcript of the Social Security
Administration record filed on August 12, 2024. Docs. 5–7. The page
numbers cited herein are those found on the bottom right corner of each
page of the transcript.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 17

Page 2 of 17
Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s claim initially on August 24,
2023, and upon reconsideration on January 12, 2024. Tr. 96–116. On
January 19, 2024, Plaintiff appealed the decision, Tr. 133, and on June
10, 	2024, 	Plaintiff, 	testified 	at 	a 	telephonic 	hearing 	before 	an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Tr. 59–98.
On June 25, 2024, the ALJ issued a written decision finding
Plaintiff not disabled under the Social Security Act from April 4, 2023,
through the date of the decision. Tr. 29–58. On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff
requested review of the ALJ’s decision, which the appeals council denied
on October 2, 2024. Tr. 1–7; 203–204. The ALJ’s decision stands as the
final decision of the Commissioner, subject to review by the District
Court. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th
Cir. 2007). This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
To be entitled to a period of disability and disability insurance
benefits, a claimant must be unable 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
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 17

Page 3 of 17
months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security Administration
has promulgated a sequential evaluation process to determine whether a
claimant is disabled. 42 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under this process, the
Commissioner must determine: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in
substantial 	gainful 	activity; 	(2) 	whether 	the 	claimant 	has 	severe
impairments; (3) whether the claimant’s severe impairments meet or
equal the criteria listed in Appendix 1, 20 C.F.R. Part 404; (4) whether
the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his or her
past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant can perform other work.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
The claimant bears the burden of establishing a severe impairment
that keeps him from performing past relevant work. Goode v. Comm’r of
Soc. 	Sec., 	966 	F.3d 	1277, 	1278 	(11th 	Cir. 	2020). 	If 	the 	claimant
establishes such an impairment, the burden shifts to the Commissioner
at Step Five to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy
that, given all of the claimant’s impairments, the claimant can perform.
Buckwalter v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 5 F.4th 1315, 1321 (11th Cir.
2021). If the Commissioner carries this burden, the claimant then must
prove that he cannot perform the work suggested by the Commissioner.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 17

Page 4 of 17
A district court’s review of the Commissioner’s final decision is
limited. A court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to ensure that the
Commissioner 	applied 	the 	proper 	legal 	standards, 	and 	substantial
evidence supports the decision. Carnes v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1215, 1218
(11th Cir. 1991). A district court reviews questions of law de novo. See
Viverette v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 13 F.4th 1309, 1313–14 (11th Cir. 2021)
(citing Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005)). For
factual determinations, a district court must determine whether the
ALJ’s decision is supported by “substantial evidence.” Id. at 1313.
“Substantial evidence” 	is not 	an exacting standard. 	Biestek v.
Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019). Although substantial evidence is “more
than a mere scintilla,” it is not a preponderance; it requires only “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id.; Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401
(1971). “Even if the evidence preponderates against the [ALJ’s] findings,”
the district court “must affirm if the ALJ’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence.” Viverette, 13 F.4th at 1314.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 17

Page 5 of 17
T HE ALJ’S F INDINGS
In denying Plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ made the following findings
under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v):
1. Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April
4, 2023, the alleged onset date.
2. Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: major depression;
hypertension; 	post-traumatic 	stress 	disorder; 	chronic 	obstructive
pulmonary disease; anxiety; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
borderline 	personality 	disorder; 	polyarthritis; 	left 	knee 	arthritis;
obesity; degenerative disc/joint disease of the thoracic and lumbar
spine; and migraines.
3. Plaintiff 	did 	not 	have 	an 	impairment 	or 	combination 	of
impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the
listed impairments.
4. Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work.
5. Considering 	Plaintiff’s 	age, 	education, 	work 	experience, 	and
residual 	functional 	capacity, 	there 	were 	jobs 	that 	existed 	in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could
perform. Tr. 29–53.
Before 	making 	the 	fourth 	finding, 	the 	ALJ 	determined 	that
Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as
defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) with additional limitations as follows:
The claimant is further limited to no more than occasional climbing
of 	ramps 	or 	stairs; 	occasional 	balancing 	stooping, 	kneeling,
crouching, 	or 	crawling; 	and 	never 	climbing 	ladders, 	ropes, 	or
scaffolds. In addition, the claimant can perform no more than
frequent 	reaching 	or 	handling. 	The 	claimant 	must 	also 	avoid
concentrated exposure to environments with vibration or workplace
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 17

Page 6 of 17
hazards. 	Furthermore, 	the 	claimant 	can 	only 	understand,
remember, 	and 	carry 	out 	simple 	instructions; 	can 	maintain
attention, concentration, and pace for two-hour increments in an
eight-hour workday; and can adapt to no more than occasional and
gradually introduced workplace change. Additionally, the claimant
can 	have 	no 	more 	than 	frequent 	interaction 	with 	co-workers,
supervisors, or the general public. Tr. 40.
In making these findings, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s testimony
regarding migraine headaches that reportedly occurred three to five days
per week, lasted up to several hours each day, and were relieved by
reclining in a dark room. Tr. 41, 71.
After considering the 	evidence, the 	ALJ 	determined 	that 	“the
medical record does not support the intensity, persistence or limiting
effects of the claimant’s . . . migraine[] related symptoms to the extent
alleged.” Tr. 45. The ALJ then evaluated medical source statements from
the State Agency physicians and the consultative examiners—Watson
Ducatel, 	D.O., 	Joey 	Ancheta, 	M.D., 	Feliz 	Subervi, 	III, 	Ph.D., 	and
Milagros Subervi, Ph.D.—and concluded that the RFC was supported by
the overall record, including evidence showing conservative treatment of
Plaintiff’s symptoms and Plaintiff’s ability to adequately function in
routine activities of daily living. Tr. 47–49.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 17

Page 7 of 17
D ISCUSSION
Plaintiff raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the ALJ erred by
failing to properly evaluate opinion evidence; and (2) whether the ALJ
properly 	accounted 	for 	Plaintiff’s 	severe 	impairment 	of 	migraine
headaches in the residual functional capacity. Doc. 13 at 3.
A. 	The ALJ Did Not Err in Evaluating Opinion Evidence
Plaintiff 	first 	argues 	the 	ALJ 	erred 	by 	failing 	to 	evaluate 	a
Compensation and Pension (C&P) Report as a medical opinion. Doc. 13
at 	5–6. 	Plaintiff, 	however, 	has 	not 	shown 	reversible 	error 	because
Plaintiff has not shown that C&P report contained a medical opinion as
defined by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(2)(ii).
1. 	The C&P Examination
On 	October 	31, 	2022, 	Plaintiff 	attended 	a 	C&P 	examination
through the Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate his alleged
migraines with headache variants. Tr. 1352–53. The C&P Report, which
predates the alleged onset of Plaintiff’s disability, notes a medical history
significant for headaches, nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to light and
sound, and visual floaters. Tr. 1353. On examination, Plaintiff reported
the 	following 	symptoms, 	which 	typically 	lasted 	less 	than 	one 	day:
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 7 of 17

Page 8 of 17
constant head pain, pain on both sides of the head, nausea, vomiting,
sensitivity to light, sensitivity to sound, and changes in vision.
Section 	IV 	of 	the 	C&P 	Report 	notes 	that 	Plaintiff 	has 	“very
prostrating and prolonged attacks of migraines / non-migraine pain
productive of severe economic inadaptability.” Tr. 1354. The C&P Report
however, does not reference any medical records or examination findings
to support this finding.
Furthermore, Sections V and VI of the C&P Report do not indicate
any “pertinent physical findings” or “diagnostic test findings” related to
Plaintiff’s diagnosis. Tr. 1354. Regardless, the examiner, Kathleen C.
Smith, N.P., determined that Plaintiff’s migraines impacted his ability to
work 	by 	impairing 	his 	“ability 	to 	concentrate.” 	Tr. 	1355. 	Nurse
Practitioner Smith did not elaborate on how Plaintiff’s migraines impact
his ability to concentrate during an eight-hour workday.
2. 	The SSA Regulations
An ALJ must consider all the evidence in the record when making
a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(3), 416.920(a)(3).
Furthermore, the RFC assessment always must address medical source
opinions. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 8 of 17

Page 9 of 17
The regulations define a “medical opinion” as “a statement from a
medical source about what you can still do despite your impairment(s)
and whether you have one or more impairment-related limitations or
restrictions in” various abilities, including the claimant’s ability (1) to
perform physical and mental demands of work activities, (2) to perform
other demands of work, and (3) to adapt to environmental conditions. 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(2), 416.913(a)(2); 	Parris v. Berryhill, 2019 WL
13488511, at *3 (M.D. Fla. March 27, 2019) (citing SSR 96-5p 1996 WL
374183, at *4–5) (“A medical source’s statement about what an individual
can still do is medical opinion evidence that an adjudicator must consider
together with all of the other relevant evidence (including other medical
source statements that may be in the case record) when assessing an
individual’s RFC”).
The regulations define “other medical evidence” as “evidence from
a from a medical source that is not objective medical evidence or a medical
opinion, 	including 	judgments 	about 	the 	nature 	and 	severity 	of 	the
claimant’s impairments, the claimant’s medical history, clinical findings,
diagnosis, treatment prescribed with response, or prognosis.’” Ball v. Soc.
Sec. Admin., Comm’r, No. 24-12496, 2025 WL 1010204, at *2 (11th Cir.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 9 of 17

Page 10 of 17
Apr. 	4, 	2025) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 	416.913(a)(3)) (emphasis added)
(alterations 	adopted)). 	Furthermore, 	the 	regulations 	provide 	that
““[d]ecisions 	by 	other 	governmental 	agencies 	and 	nongovernmental
entities,” 	including 	the 	VA, 	are 	“inherently 	neither 	valuable 	nor
persuasive” such that the ALJ “will not provide any analysis about how
[it] considered such evidence in [its] determination or decision, even
under § 404.1520c.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b(c); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504
(“[W]e will not provide any analysis in our determination or decision
about 	a 	decision 	made 	by 	any 	other 	governmental 	agency 	or 	a
nongovernmental 	entity 	about 	whether 	you 	are 	disabled, 	blind,
employable, or entitled to any benefits.”).
3. 	Application
In order for the C&P Report to be considered a medical opinion, it
was required to meet four essential elements:
(1) it must be a statement;
(2) from a medical source;
(3) about plaintiff’s abilities despite his impairments; and
(4) whether 	the 	plaintiff 	has 	one 	or 	more 	impairment-related
limitations or restrictions based on several enumerated abilities.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 10 of 17

Page 11 of 17
Staheli v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 5495694, at *3 (D. Utah Nov. 23, 2021), aff’d
sub nom. Staheli v. Comm’r, SSA, 84 F.4th 901 (10th Cir. 2023). Because
the regulations use the word “and” between the third and fourth element,
a medical opinion requires both elements to be met. Staheli, 84 F.4th at
906 n.2; see generally Am. Bankers Ins. Grp. v. United States, 408 F.3d
1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2005) (“unless the context dictates otherwise, the
word 	‘and’ 	is 	presumed 	to 	be 	used 	in 	its 	ordinary 	sense, 	that 	is,
conjunctively”).
Here, Plaintiff has not shown that Nurse Practitioner Smith’s
statements in the C&P Report constitute “medical opinions.” The C&P
Report is not a “medical opinion” as defined by the regulation, because
Nurse Practitioner Smith did not offer an opinion on what Plaintiff can
still do despite his impairment. The list of Plaintiff’s symptom and Nurse
Practitioner Smith’s opinion about Plaintiff’s economic inadaptability are
not “medical opinions” as defined by the regulation. 	Ball, 2025 WL
1010204, at *2 (noting that other medical evidence” includes “judgments
about 	the 	nature 	and 	severity 	of 	the 	claimant’s 	impairments, 	the
claimant’s 	medical 	history, 	clinical 	findings, 	diagnosis, 	treatment
prescribed with response, or prognosis.’”).
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 11 of 17

Page 12 of 17
True, Nurse Practitioner Smith opined that Plaintiff’s migraines
impacted Plaintiff’s ability to “concentrate,” but the statement is devoid
of 	any 	discussion 	about 	what 	Plaintiff’s 	abilities 	are 	despite 	this
impairment. This conclusion, therefore, does not meet the third element
of the definition of a “medical opinion.” Staheli, 2021 WL 5495694, at *3;
see generally Ball, 2025 WL 1010204, at *3 (concluding that that the
nurse practitioner’s notes were not a medical opinion because they did
not address the plaintiff’s ability to perform demands of work despite the
impairments); Dye v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 970186, at *4 (M.D.
Fla. Mar. 31, 2022) (concluding letter was not a medical opinion because
the statements in the letter did not assess the extent to which the
plaintiff could perform any particular function in a work setting).
Because the C&P Report is not a “medical opinion” as defined by 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(2), 416.913(a)(2), the ALJ did not err in failing to
evaluate 	the 	report 	as 	a 	medical 	opinion 	under 	20 	C.F.R.
§§ 404.1513(a)(2), 416.913(a)(2).
B. 	The RFC is Supported by Substantial Evidence
Plaintiff next argues that the RFC does not include limitations
reasonably related to Plaintiff’s migraines because the ALJ failed to
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 12 of 17

Page 13 of 17
explain 	how 	limitations 	related 	to 	vibrations, 	hazards, 	and 	simple
instructions relate to migraine headaches. Doc 13 at 6.
The ALJ’s written decision addresses Plaintiff’s migraines several
times in the RFC analysis. Specifically, the ALJ notes Plaintiff’s history
of migraines treated through the Department of Veterans Affairs and
acknowledges Plaintiff’s testimony regarding migraine headaches. Tr.
41–42.
The ALJ’s written decision articulates that Plaintiff’s assertions
about the limiting effects of his symptoms were: (1) inconsistent 	with
Plaintiff’s 	daily 	activities—such 	as 	driving, 	using 	a 	computer, 	and
playing games; and (2) unsupported by objective examination findings in
the medical record. Tr. 42. The ALJ’s written decision also discussed
medical records that indicated Plaintiff had intact neurological signs.
Additionally, the ALJ relied on an August 2023 consultative examination
that indicated Plaintiff had no complaints of dizziness, nausea, recent
headaches, changes in sensation, weakness, imbalance, or memory loss.
Tr. 42–43.
The ALJ’s written decision also discusses a May 2024 consultative
examination, during which Plaintiff complained of significant headache
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 13 of 17

Page 14 of 17
symptoms, but discounts these subjective complaints by noting largely
benign physical signs and conservative treatment recommendations,
including massage and ibuprofen. Tr. 44.
Indeed, an independent review of the medical record does not
support 	the 	degree 	of 	limitation 	alleged 	by 	Plaintiff 	regarding 	his
migraines. Plaintiff has a 50 percent service-connected disability rating
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for migraine headaches. Tr.
1056. Although Plaintiff reported significant migraine symptoms during
the C&P examination on October 31, 2022—roughly six months before
the alleged onset of disability on April 4, 2023—the record shows little in
the way of headache complaints during the period at issue for his claim.
Tr. 1352. Specifically, Plaintiff reported headache symptoms in March
2023 (due to a nasal obstruction) and again in August 2023 (due to
COVID-19.) Tr. 1980–83, 2235. Otherwise, however, Plaintiff denied
headache symptoms during the consultative examination on August 23,
2023. Tr. 1128. Also, throughout the remainder of the record, there is no
evidence that Plaintiff sought from the Department of Veterans Affairs
any treatment for migraines or related symptoms. See Doc. 6-4, 6-5, 6-6.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 14 of 17

Page 15 of 17
The psychological consultative examination report of May 1, 2024
entails subjective complaints of migraine headaches occurring at least
five times a week, which Dr. Felix Subervi considered in providing his
medical opinion. Tr. 2360, 2367. A corresponding independent medical
evaluation 	conducted 	by 	Dr. 	Joey 	Ancheta 	also 	shows 	subjective
complaints of “sharp, aching and stinging bilateral headaches,” but no
objective examination findings consistent active headache symptoms
occurring between “three fourths and all” of Plaintiff’s awake time. Tr.
2374, 	2377–2378. 	The 	ALJ 	properly 	addressed 	this 	evidence 	and
evaluated the available opinion evidence as required by Social Security
Regulations. Tr. 47–49.
In finding the RFC “supported by the overall record,” the ALJ noted
that: 	(1) 	Plaintiff’s 	“symptoms 	are 	adequately 	controlled 	with 	both
conservative and over the counter medication,” and (2) Plaintiff “is able
to function adequately in routine activities of daily living with occasional
and/or little assistance.” Tr. 49. Both of these findings are consistent with
the record as it relates to Plaintiff’s migraine headaches, which did not
require any treatment during the relevant period and did not prevent
Plaintiff from performing driving, using a computer, and playing games.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 15 of 17

Page 16 of 17
Because the ALJ articulated specific reasons for the limitations
assessed in the decision, which are supported by and consistent with the
objective medical evidence related to Plaintiff’s migraines, the ALJ did
not err in assessing the RFC.
CONCLUSION
Because the ALJ did not err in evaluating the opinion evidence or
assessing the RFC, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that
the District Court:
1. 	AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)–
(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed
findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only and does not control. An objecting
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 16 of 17

Page 17 of 17
party must serve a copy of its objections upon all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
report 	and 	recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:24-cv-00602-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 12/16/25 Page 17 of 17