Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:25-cv-80311-DSL/Reid
TERRY L. RICHMOND
Plaintiff,
v.
LELAND DUDEK1,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”), [ECF No. 33], and Plaintiff’s “Main
Brief,” [ECF No. 28], in which he objected to Defendant’s decision on his application for disability
benefits. Plaintiff has also filed Motions to Order the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) to
File Concealed Evidence into the Record. [ECF Nos. 26, 27]. The Honorable David S. Leibowitz
referred the Motions to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 23]. For the
reasons stated below, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motions to Order the SSA
to File Concealed Evidence into the Record be DENIED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be GRANTED, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision be AFFIRMED.
1 Frank Bisignano was sworn in as the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025. See Soc.
Sec. Admin., Financial Services Industry Leader Frank Bisignano to be the 18th Commissioner
of Social Security, Soc. Sec. Matters. (May 7, 2025), https://blog.ssa.gov/financial-services-
industry-leader-frank-bisignano-to-be-the-18th-commissioner-of-social-security/.
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 1 of 21

2
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff appeals Defendant’s decision on Plaintiff’s applications for disability, Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). [ECF Nos. 1, 10-7 at
267–79]. In his application he alleges he was disabled since March 14, 1955, his date of birth.
[ECF No. 10-7 at 267]. Plaintiff’s counsel later noted that Plaintiff’s “practical disability period”
was June 19, 2019, when Plaintiff had applied for disability insurance benefits. [ECF No. 10 at
517, 519]. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. [Id. at 725–28, 751–57].
On February 22, 2023, the ALJ held a hearing and issued a decision finding Plaintiff became
disabled commencing on October 18, 2021, but was not disabled before that date. [Id. at 455–73].
The Appeals Council denied his request for reconsideration of the ALJ’s decision. [Id. at 31–37].
Thereafter, Plaintiff appealed to the district court initiating this action. See [ECF No. 1].
In his brief, Plaintiff, who is represented by attorney Alexander Schultz (“Attorney
Schultz”), contends the ALJ’s decision is flawed. [ECF No. 28]. He raises six issues. First, he
requests that video-recordings made by the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) investigation to
be made part of the record in this case. Second, he requests that the testimony of medical expert
Dr. Braun2, which the ALJ found partially persuasive, should be stricken. Third, he maintains
Defendant should have ordered a further psychological consultative exam and a cardiology
consultative exam, questioning the sufficiency of two of the consultative exams performed.
Finally, he contends that the ALJ’s decision amounts to a violation of the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.3 [ECF No. 28 at 6–12]. Further, Plaintiff filed two motions
2 The hearing transcript refers to the doctor as “Dr. Braun” although the ALJ’s decision refers to
the testimony of “Dr. Baum.” [ECF No. 10 at 68, 467].
3 As a seventh issue Plaintiff requests for a class action and gives notice of a Bivens action. Because
this is merely a statement of what Plaintiff will do in the future; it does not raise an issue with the
ALJ’s decision, and the Court will not address it.
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 2 of 21

3
requesting an order directing Defendant to file “secret evidence” from the OIG investigation on
the record. [ECF Nos. 26, 27].
For reasons that will be explained in this Report, the ALJ’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence and Plaintiff’s motions should be denied.
RELEVANT LAW
A. Standard of Review
The scope of this Court’s review is limited to whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standards and whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. Monroe v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec. Admin., 569 F. App’x 833, 835 (11th Cir. 2014). “Under the substantial-evidence standard, a
court looks to an existing administrative record and asks whether it contains sufficient evidence to
support the agency’s factual determinations.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102 (2019) (internal
quotations omitted). Evidence is substantial when it is “more than a mere scintilla” but one which
“reasonable mind[s] might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 103 (citations
omitted). The court must not “find facts ‘anew,’ reweigh evidence, or substitute [its] own judgment
for that of the ALJ, even if [the court] find[s] [that] the evidence preponderates against the ALJ’s
decision.” Wright v. Barnhart, 153 F. App’x 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Martin v. Sullivan,
894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir.1990)). Accordingly, remand is appropriate only when “the record
reveals evidentiary gaps which result in unfairness or clear prejudice.” Henry v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 802 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). Prejudice requires a
showing that the ALJ did not consider all the relevant evidence in the record in reaching her
decision. Kelley v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 1538, 1540 (11th Cir. 1985).
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 3 of 21

4
B. Regulatory Framework
“[T]he overall burden of demonstrating the existence of a disability as defined by the Social
Security Act unquestionably rests with the claimant.” Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d
1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1280 (11th Cir. 2001)); 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a). To meet this definition, the claimant must have a severe impairment that
makes him unable to do past relevant work or any other substantial gainful work that exists in the
national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505. The Social Security Act outlines a five-step sequential
evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).
First, a claimant engaged in “substantial gainful activity,” is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant does not have an “impairment or combination of impairments”
that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, he is
not disabled. Id. at § 404.1520(c). Third, if a claimant’s impairments do not “meet or equal” an
impairment listed in a provided appendix, he is not disabled. Id. at § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if a
claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal an impairment in a provided appendix, the ALJ must
assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). Id. at § 404.1520(e). Fifth, using the
claimant’s RFC, the ALJ will embark on a two-level analysis. The ALJ will first determine if the
claimant can perform the physical and mental demands of his past relevant work. Id. at §
404.1520(f). If the claimant cannot, the ALJ will then determine whether, in light of claimant’s
age, education, and work experience, he can still perform other types of work. Id. at §
404.1520(g)(1). If the claimant can do other work, the claimant is not disabled. Id.
Regarding the burden of proof, the claimant must prove he has a severe impairment or
combination of impairments to establish a disability at steps one to four of the evaluation. See
Williams v. Astrue, 416 F. App’x 861, 862 (11th Cir. 2011). At step five, however, the burden shifts
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 4 of 21

5
to the ALJ to show there are other jobs the claimant may still perform despite his condition. See
id.
THE RECORD
A. Plaintiff’s Testimony
Plaintiff alleged disability due to uncontrolled diabetes, peripheral neuropathy,
hypertension, heart disease, mania, periodic severe depression, memory loss, hepatitis B test
results, spina bifida, and hyperlipidimia. [ECF No. 10-7 at 318]. Plaintiff testified before the ALJ
on February 22, 2023. [ECF No. 10 at 162]. Plaintiff was sixty-four years old on the date of his
application and sixty-seven at the time of the hearing. [Id. at 168, 175]. Plaintiff has a high school
education and completed one year of community college. [Id. at 176].
Regarding his past work experience during his lifetime, Plaintiff testified he worked twice
at a flea market where he sold used clothes. [Id. at 176–78]. Plaintiff performed the job once a
week for three hours since he stated he could not stand for long. [Id.]. Further, Plaintiff explained
the only full-time job he performed was selling furniture when he was eighteen years old. [Id. at
178–79]. In addition, Plaintiff stated he would do grocery shopping for some friends and worked
as a bartender part-time in the 1990s. [Id. at 183–84]. He testified that in the past, Plaintiff also
served as a “deputy” of Lake Worth Lutheran Church and specified the job required him to stand
for twelve hours—the longest he has stood in his whole life. [Id. at 191]. Plaintiff testified he was
unable to work long-term or full-time due to “sickness.” [Id. at 184].
Plaintiff testified that prior to applying for disability he only received food stamps and
Attorney Schultz, “a friend of the family,” assisted him in paying his electric bill and maintenance.
[Id. at 179]. Attorney Schultz has been financially assisting Plaintiff for thirty-five years,
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 5 of 21

6
purchased the condominium where Plaintiff resides, and Plaintiff pays him $400 each month. [Id.
at 191–92, 195].
When describing his symptoms Plaintiff was vague. Plaintiff explained he is diabetic, and
hypertensive. [Id.]. He testified he was taking gabapentin medication for his neuropathy which
would make him very sick; Plaintiff took the medication for seven years and had stopped taking it
three years before the hearing. [Id. at 184–85]. To treat his neuropathy, Plaintiff stated he takes
walks, but he is unable to exercise. [Id. at 185]. Plaintiff takes the walks with a cane he has been
using on and off for ten years. [Id.].
He also testified that he had polio when younger and experiences “deep” depressions. [Id.
at 186–87]. When asked by the ALJ why he did not work consistently, he replied that he did not
know, he “would get sick…from the pill …the medicines.” [Id.] Due to the depressions, Plaintiff
explained he did not leave his home from September 2019 to March 2022. [Id. at 188–89, 200–
01]. However, at the time of the hearing Plaintiff testified he felt better and would drive three to
four days a week to the senior center or grocery store. [Id. at 187–88; 193]. He stated he did not
take medication for depression, but he received treatment from a case worker and a clinical
psychologist. [Id. at 194].
B. Medical Evidence
a. Dr. Philip Braun, Ph.D.
Dr. Philip Braun, Ph.D. (“Dr. Braun”) testified before the ALJ on February 22, 2023. [ECF
No. 10 at 207]. To form an opinion, Dr. Braun examined Plaintiff’s medical record and listened to
Plaintiff’s testimony during the hearing. [Id. at 206–08]. After considering the evidence, Dr. Braun
opined that:
From the – on the A listing, the symptom presentation, the Claimant meets 12.04
A1A, depressed mood, B, diminished interest in activities, C, appetite disturbance
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 6 of 21

7
and changing weight, D, sleep disturbance, and F, decreased energy. In addition,
from the symptoms presentation perspective he meets 12.06, anxiety disorder, A2B
which is in effect disproportionate fear and anxiety in at least two different
situations which is – can be translated to agoraphobia.
[Id. at 208, 210–11]. Further, when asked whether Plaintiff’s severe impairments meet or equal
any listing, Dr. Braun opined they did not. [Id. at 212].
During the hearing, Dr. Braun asked Plaintiff to clarify a statement from his medical record.
[Id. at 209]. In December 2021, Plaintiff had told a psychologist he started leaving his house in
October 2021 and not March 2022—as he testified. [Id.]. Plaintiff clarified that his statement to
the psychologist had been a mistake since he had only left his house in 2021 to go to a doctor’s
appointment. [Id. at 209].
Dr. Braun was then questioned by Attorney Schultz. [Id.]. Attorney Schultz focused his
questioning on whether Dr. Braun had considered sworn statements from Plaintiff’s neighbors,
referencing statements in which neighbors had noted Plaintiff had periods of time in which he did
not leave his home. [Id. at 212–15]. Dr. Braun stated that he only considered Plaintiff’s medical
record and neighbor’s observations would not be relevant to his assessment. [Id.]. Attorney Schultz
then informed Dr. Braun he should hear Plaintiff’s neighbors’ testimony stating that they did not
see Plaintiff leave his home from 2019 to 2022. [Id. at 213, 226–27, 234–35].
Dr. Braun noted that the medical records had indicated that Plaintiff “didn’t want to leave
the house very often,” but had just testified before the ALJ that “he goes out three or four times a
week.” [Id. at 217]. Ultimately, Dr. Braun opined, based upon Plaintiff’s medical records that
Plaintiff “could work in an environment where he has occasional or infrequent interactions with
the public and coworkers, regular interaction with supervisors, and he is capable of simple,
repetitive tasks.” [Id. at 211].
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 7 of 21

8
b. Consultative Examinations
In the briefings, the parties discuss three consultative exams that had been provided by
Defendant.
i. Dr. Ronald L. Seifer, Ph.D.
In November 2019, Dr. Ronald L. Seifer, Ph.D., conducted a mental examination of
Plaintiff. (“Dr. Seifer”). [ECF No. 10-2 at 374–77]. During the consultation, Plaintiff denied
experiencing manic symptoms or mood cycling which was contrary to Attorney Schultz’s written
observations or living space photographs. See [id. at 376]. Further, Plaintiff denied
suicidal/homicidal ideations, plans, or intent and hallucinations or delusions. See [id.].
Dr. Seifer reported Plaintiff’s speech was understandable and he was oriented but could
not recall the doctor’s name. See [id.]. Plaintiff could recall 3/3 items after an intervening task but
0/3 after five minutes and could repeat five digits forward and three in reverse, which in Dr. Seifer’s
opinion, showed “weak performance with limitations in attention/concentration and short-term
memory, needing further neurocognitive evaluation.” See [id.]. In addition, Plaintiff could spell
the word, “world,” correctly forward and in reverse, could name the current, former, and first
presidents, and name three large U.S. cities and the capital of the U.S. See [id.]. Plaintiff knew the
number of pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters in a dollar and was able to calculate the sum of a
quarter, dime, nickel, and penny; but miscalculated the number of nickels in $1.35. Dr. Seifer
estimated that cognitively, Plaintiff was “likely functioning within low average limits or below,
with attention/concentration and memory issues, needing psychometric evaluation.” See [id.].
Ultimately, Dr. Seifer opined Plaintiff’s symptoms appeared to be a “chronic and ongoing
presentation of inadequate performance with exacerbation of clear mindedness, mood, fatigue and
sleep problems, needing further medical records and examinations to clarify underlying
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 8 of 21

9
causation.” [Id. at 377]. With respect to functional limitations, Dr. Seifer determined Plaintiff
appeared to have a “moderate understanding and memory impairment, needing neurocognitive
evaluation[,]” a marked impairment in his sustained concentration and persistence which needed
neurocognitive evaluation, his social interaction appeared to have a moderate to marked
impairment, and his adaptation appeared to have marked impairment. See [id.].
c. Dr. Daniel L. Ward Ph.D.
In December 2021, another psychologist consultative examiner, Dr. Daniel L. Ward (“Dr.
Ward”), examined Plaintiff. [ECF No. 10-13 at 259–65]. Dr. Ward observed Plaintiff walked and
moved slowly with no apparent difficulties in posture or coordination, but his gate appeared
unsteady, and Plaintiff indicated he used a cane while walking. See [id. at 260–61]. During the
consultation, Plaintiff’s speech was normal in volume and rate, he articulated within normal limits
and easily understood. However, conversation was largely limited to replying to direct questions.
See [id. at 261].
Dr. Ward opined Plaintiff was able to follow concrete verbal and written instructions, but
it was “suspected task persistence was likely impaired to some degree.” See [id. at 262]. Further,
Plaintiff interacted appropriately with someone he did not know; however, in Dr. Ward’s opinion,
Plaintiff might be socially handicapped to some degree. See [id.]. In addition, Dr Ward opined
Plaintiff would not have done well in occupations requiring frequent, protracted, or demanding
social interactions, and would have had significant difficulty effectively managing the expectations
of employment. See [id.]. Lastly, it was Dr. Ward’s assessment that Plaintiff had none to moderate
impairment in understanding, remembering, and carrying out instructions, and mild to moderate
impairment in interacting See [id.].
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 9 of 21

10
d. Steven Kanner, D.O.
In October 2021, Steven Kanner, D.O. (“Dr. Kanner”) conducted a physical examination
of Plaintiff. [ECF No. 10-13 at 246–55]. During the consultation Plaintiff was alert, oriented and
cooperative with no acute distress and no overt psychiatric manifestations. See [id. at 247].
Plaintiff’s vision, skin, neck, lungs, heart, spine, and abdomen exams were within normal limits.
See [id. at 247–48]. In summary, Plaintiff had weakness in his left leg, with atrophy of the left calf
musculature and diminished sensation in the left leg. See [id. at 247]. Further, Plaintiff had a poor
understanding of his medical history. See [id. at 248].
Dr. Kanner opined Plaintiff could sit and stand for short periods, walk short distances
without the use of his cane, and lift, carry, and handle objects without difficulty. See [id. at 249].
Dr. Kanner also opined that Plaintiff could have frequently lifted up to twenty pounds and
occasionally lifted up to fifty pounds, carried up to twenty pounds occasionally, sit for forty
minutes at a time for a total of four hours, stand and/or walk for twenty minutes at a time for a
total of two hours, needed a cane for long distances but not short distances, frequently operated
foot controls with the right foot, occasionally operated foot controls with the left foot, never
climbed, stooped, knelt, or crouched, occasionally crawled, and frequently operated a motor
vehicle. See [id. at 250–54].
C. Vocational Expert’s Testimony
The Vocational Expert (the “VE”) reviewed Plaintiff’s records and listened to his testimony
prior to being presented hypotheticals by the ALJ. [ECF No. 10 at 242]. The ALJ first asked the
following hypothetical:
Let’s assume a hypothetical individual of [Plaintiff’s] age, education, and work
history. Assume that the individual is able to perform at the medium exertional
level, who can occasionally climb, who can frequently balance and stoop, and can
tolerate frequent exposures to extreme temperatures, vibrating surfaces and tools,
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 10 of 21

11
and workplace hazards such as unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts and
operating heavy machinery. The individual can understand, remember and carry out
simple, routine wrote [sic] or repetitive tasks. . . . The individual can interact with
coworkers and the general public and occasionally, can adapt to predictable
occasional routine workplace changes independently. Can the individual do any
types of jobs in the National Economy?
[Id. at 242–43]. The VE responded that such an individual could perform the following jobs in the
National Economy: Cleaner, Industrial, Sweeper-Cleaner, Industrial, and Day Worker. [Id. at 243].
With respect to tolerance limits for being off-task, the VE testified employees working
more independently such as Sweeper-Cleaner or Day Worker, or people working in offices may be
off task as much as 15%. [Id. at 244]. Further, the VE testified unskilled workers do not enjoy paid
absences but may be allowed six to ten days per year depending upon the employer’s policy and
employee productivity. [Id.]. The VE further elaborated employers usually allow for fifteen minute
breaks in the morning and afternoon and a thirty-minute lunch break. [Id. at 244–45]. Lastly, the
ALJ asked “if the individual at the age of – over 60 is relegated to light work with no past work
experience, would the individual have any skills to do other kinds of work?” [Id. at 245]. The VE
responded in the negative. [Id.].
Attorney Schultz asked the VE whether a person who seeks immediate medical treatment
on a frequent basis would be limited on the job. [Id. at 246]. The VE answered that “[i]f an
individual has repetitive medical crises that are disruptive to the workplace, there would ultimately
be no work.” [Id.]
D. The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ followed a five-step sequential process in evaluating Plaintiff’s claim for
disability benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Because Plaintiff only raises issue with the fact that
Dr. Seifer, Dr. Ward, and Dr. Kanner did not watch the “secret” videotapes, and with Dr. Braun’s
testimony, the Court will only reference their opinions when discussing the ALJ’s decision.
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 11 of 21

12
After considering the medical record as a whole, the ALJ found the conclusions reached
by Dr. Kanner not persuasive. [Id. at 467]. The ALJ acknowledged the conclusion was supported
by Dr. Kanner’s examination; however, the opinion was “not consistent with the medical record .
. . which revealed the claimant was in no acute distress with normal cardiovascular findings,
normal musculoskeletal findings, and normal feet findings.” [Id]. Additionally, the ALJ
acknowledged the psychological examination conducted by Dr. Seifer and concluded it was not
persuasive because it was not consistent with the medical record. [Id.]. Similarly, the ALJ found
Dr. Ward’s opinion not persuasive and not consistent with the medical record during that period,
which revealed Plaintiff often had normal mental status findings during that period. [Id. at 468].
Further, the ALJ found there was a lack of objective evidence to substantiate Plaintiff’s claims of
agoraphobia. [Id. at 459]. The ALJ noted that consultative examiner, Roger L. Bash Ph.D.,
identified agoraphobic features but did not diagnose agoraphobia specifically. [Id., ECF No. 10-
12 at 451–54]. “Given the pandemic’s effects, the fear of COVID is not necessarily unreasonable.
. . . The evidence better supported social avoidance and isolation due to depression, not fear or
anxiety of public or open spaces.” [ECF No. 10 at 459].
In addition, the ALJ considered Dr. Braun’s hearing testimony and opinion. [Id. at 467].
The ALJ noted that while she did not adopt Dr. Braun’s opinion in its entirety, the ALJ found it
persuasive because it was supported by Dr. Braun’s review of the entire medical record. [Id.].
However, the ALJ “found that the evidence supported limiting [Plaintiff] to simple routine rote or
repetitive tasks with occasionally interaction with co-workers and the general public and adapt to
predictable, occasional, routine workplace changes independently[.]” [Id.].
After carefully considering the medical record and the VE’s testimony, the ALJ concluded
that prior to October 18, 2021, Plaintiff “was capable of making a successful adjustment to other
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 12 of 21

13
work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy.” [Id. at 472]. Thus, prior to
October 18, 2021, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled. However, the ALJ determined that
beginning October 18, 2021, “considering [Plaintiff’s] age, education, work experience, and
[RFC], there are no jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff]
can perform.” [Id.].
DISCUSSION
The RFC is the ALJ’s assessment, based on all relevant evidence, of a claimant’s ability to
work despite his or her impairments. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997). “Error
arises only when the ALJ rejects medical evidence from the RFC ‘without (at least) providing a
good reason for doing so.’” Felker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:22-CV-221-KCD, 2023 WL
2986246, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2023) (quoting Sneed v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:13-CV-
1453-ORL-TBS, 2015 WL 1268257, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2015)). “Even if the evidence
preponderates against the Secretary, we must affirm if the decision is supported by substantial
evidence.” Sewell v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 1065, 1067 (11th Cir. 1985). In addition, “[t]he ALJ is not
required to specifically discuss each piece of evidence so long as the decision shows that [s]he
considered the claimant’s condition as a whole.” Robinson v. Kijakazi, No. 21-21603-CIV, 2022
WL 18155656, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom.
Robinson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-21603, 2023 WL 136556 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2023) (quoting
Alvarez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 848 F. App’x 823, 824 (11th Cir. 2021)). Substantial evidence from
the record shows the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments, both
severe and non-severe, in concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled prior to October 18, 2021.
Here, Plaintiff raises six arguments for why the case should be remanded. See generally [ECF No.
28]. The Court will address each argument in turn.
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 13 of 21

14
A. OIG Investigation
Plaintiff’s main argument is that videos allegedly taken by OIG during an investigation
should be part of the record. [ECF No. 28 at 6–7]. In support of this issue Plaintiff has filed four
separate motions: (1) Motion to Request / Refer this Matter to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; (2) Motion to Order the Social Security Administration to File All Secret Evidence
into the Record; (3) An Amended Motion requesting the same relief; and (4) Motion to refer
exhibits B, C, D, G, and H to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, or
alternatively to the Honorable Aileen M. Cannon and a federal grand jury. [ECF Nos. 20, 26, 27,
31]. In all motions Plaintiff’s argument focuses on an alleged secret videotape from an OIG
investigation of Plaintiff which appears to depict Plaintiff shopping at a grocery store. [Id.].
According to Plaintiff, the so-called “secret video tapes” and a report dated July 19, 2022, from
the OIG stated that Plaintiff was “suspected” of “exaggerating the severity of his functional
limitations.” [ECF No. 28 at 4, 6–7]. He notes, however, that the person who appears in the video
grocery shopping is Attorney Schultz and not Plaintiff. [Id.]. Plaintiff argues that such recordings
were made “in violation of federal laws, rules, and regulations” and that the ALJ and Defendant
are “corruptly” concealing them. [Id].
Defendant, in turn, asserts the ALJ did not consider any videotapes or OIG reports in
making her final decision; thus, the videotapes were not part of the “evidence upon which the
findings and decision complained of are based” and do not have to be produced. [ECF No. 32 at
2]. Further, Defendant argues the allegations are not relevant “to what is central to this Court’s
review – Plaintiff’s disability claim.” [ECF No. 33 at 6–7]. Plaintiff failed to file a response to
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 14 of 21

15
Here, the record shows the ALJ did not consider the videotapes that Plaintiff complains of.
Before explaining her decision on Plaintiff’s disability application, the ALJ stated:
[O]n March 9, 2023, the representative submitted some objection or complaint
concerning due process. The document is not germane to the material issues on the
application for supplemental security income. The document was largely
duplicative concerning the representative’s concern of the Cooperative Disability
Investigations Unit (CDIU) investigation. That first CDIU investigation report was
not considered for this decision due to the errors pointed out by counsel and
admitted by the investigators. That second CDIU report is not significantly material
to the decision. The claimant is disabled as of 2021, which pre-dates the second
report. The decision does not rely upon any perceived mis-statements in that second
report. That new document submitted by counsel was not exhibited or added to the
record. A document dated March 27, 2023 was exhibited after the hearing as exhibit
413E. The representative references events that occurred since the hearing. Those
events are not material as the claimant has been established disabled as of October
18, 2021. Any additional evidence the representative seeks to submit to support
disability after the established onset date is not necessary. Additional testimony on
events occurring after October 2021 is cumulative and redundant.
[ECF No. 10 at 455–56]. The ALJ clearly stated the results of the OIG investigation were not
considered when deciding Plaintiff was disabled as of October 18, 2021. The video recordings and
reports appear to have been made in 2022 and 2023. Therefore, as Defendant pointed out, the
videotapes are not part of the record and are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s disability appeal. See generally
Reynolds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:20-CV-1626-DNF, 2021 WL 5002735, at *7 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 28, 2021) (“In addition, these awards occurred after the relevant time period of on or before
August 12, 2019, and there is no evidence that they relate to the relevant time period. For these
reasons, the Court finds the Appeals Council’s decision is supported by substantial evidence that
these records are not material and do not affect the decision of whether Plaintiff was disabled
during the relevant time period.”).
B. Dr. Braun’s Testimony
Next, Plaintiff argues Dr. Braun’s testimony should be stricken because he did not hear
testimony from Plaintiff’s neighbors at the hearing nor watch the grocery shopping videos. [ECF
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 15 of 21

16
No. 28 at 7–8]. Further, Attorney Schultz states he believes that Dr. Baum “falsely testified and
that he actually spent minimal time reviewing the record.” [Id.]. Plaintiff also raises issue with the
fact that Dr. Braun testified telephonically. [Id.]. In response, Defendant states Plaintiff’s
arguments are pure conjecture, and Plaintiff provided no basis or support for his theories or
speculation. [ECF No. 33 at 7].
Here, Plaintiff raises no issues with the ALJ findings that Dr. Braun’s opinion was
persuasive, rather, Plaintiff’s arguments focus on Dr. Braun’s testimony. Dr. Braun testified he
reviewed the entire medical record and based his opinion on such review, and not on statements
from Plaintiff’s neighbors. [ECF No. 10 at 207, 212–13]. Plaintiff’s brief is devoid of any concrete
facts showing that Dr. Braun did not review the entire medical record. [ECF No. 28 at 7–8]. Further,
Plaintiff fails to explain how Dr. Braun’s testimony would have changed had Dr. Braun heard
additional testimony from Plaintiff’s neighbors or seen the grocery store videos. [Id.]; Reese v.
Saul, 533 F. Supp. 3d 1061, 1071 (M.D. Ala. 2020) (“Plaintiff has merely speculated that a
consultative examination might produce evidence to support her claim. Such speculation is
insufficient to require remand.”). The neighbors had given general testimony that Plaintiff at times
did not leave his home. [ECF No. 10 at 226–27, 234–35]. Lastly, as explained by the ALJ, medical
experts are allowed to testify by telephone and Plaintiff’s basis for the objection—that Dr. Braun
is a SSA hired gun—is without merit. See Wright v. Colvin, No. 12-21773-CIV, 2014 WL 3400978,
at *10 (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2014) (“To the extent that counsel was arguing that testifying
telephonically is not permitted or is somehow unduly prejudicial, this argument is without merit. .
. . Counsel’s failure to explain how this telephonic testimony prejudiced the hearing, coupled with
this specific provision in HALLEX that allows for such testimony, leads the Undersigned to
conclude that allowing Dr. Strahl to testify over the phone did not produce a biased proceeding.”).
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 16 of 21

17
C. Additional Consultative Psychological Exam and Consultative Physical Exam
Plaintiff argues the ALJ should have allowed Plaintiff to undergo an additional consultative
psychological exam. [ECF No. 28 at 9]. Specifically, Plaintiff argues he should undergo an
additional consultative psychological exam by a doctor who has seen the videotapes from the OIG
investigation so the examiner can better diagnose Plaintiff. [Id.]. Additionally, Plaintiff argues he
should be examined by a cardiologist. [Id. at 10]. In support of this argument, Plaintiff relies on a
recent hospitalization after he fell down the stairs in August 2025. [Id.].
First, Defendant responds that the videotapes are not part of the record and “therefore
would not be provided to any consultative examiner as part of the medical evidence.” [ECF No.
33 at 8]. Second, Defendant argues “an ALJ may order a consultative exam if she needs additional
evidence to determine whether a claimant is disabled or not.” [Id.] (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1517).
And in this case Plaintiff underwent at least two consultative psychological exams and had mental
diagnoses of anxiety and depression, which the ALJ accounted for in the RFC. [Id.]. Regarding
Plaintiff’s argument that he should be seen by a cardiologist, Defendant states such request is
irrelevant since Plaintiff was found disabled since October 18, 2021. [Id. at 8–9]. Thus, “[a]n
increased risk of falling or any additional findings or current observations by a cardiologist would
not change that result.” [Id. at 9]. The Court finds the request irrelevant since Plaintiff’s request
stems from a fall he suffered in August 2025—nearly four years after Plaintiff’s onset disability
date.
Under the social security regulations, the ALJ may order additional consultative
examinations if the medical evidence submitted by the claimant does not provide enough
information about an impairment to determine whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §
416.917. “Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, an ALJ is not required to order additional
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 17 of 21

18
examinations or consult with a medical expert, however, if the evidence in the record is sufficient
for the ALJ to make an informed decision.” Pete v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 22-14389-
CIV, 2024 WL 1446248, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2024), report and recommendation adopted in
part sub nom. Pete v. Kijakazi, No. 22-14389-CV, 2024 WL 1297549 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2024).
Here, nothing before the Court suggests that the ALJ needed an additional consultative
examination or expert testimony to assess Plaintiff’s RFC. Indeed, consultative psychological
examinations had already been conducted and the ALJ properly considered them. For example, the
ALJ considered Dr. Seifer’s opinion and found it not persuasive because “the opinion did not
provide any valuable or useful functional limitations in terms of time, frequency, type of
interactions or tasks.” [ECF No. 10 at 467]. The ALJ further stated Dr. Seifer’s opinion was not
supported by the medical record at the time which revealed Plaintiff often had normal mental status
findings. [Id.; ECF No. 10-12 at 154, 160–61, 166]. Thus, remand is not warranted on the basis
the ALJ did not order an additional consultative psychological exam. Pete, 2024 WL 1446248, at
*11 (“Having reviewed the entire record, I conclude that that the medical evidence available to the
ALJ was sufficient for him to make an informed determination of Plaintiff’s RFC[.]”).
D. Due Process Claim
Plaintiff argues he was denied due process because:
The medical reports of the SSA doctors and psychologists are based on a snapshot
in time, ignoring a well-documented history of long-standing problems, including
prior EKGs and blood tests. SSA’s failure to provide this information to the doctors
and psychologists prior to their exams of Claimant constitutes a violation of the
regulations and a denial of due process. To rectify the matter the following
questions can be submitted to Dr. Kanner and Dr. Ward, along with the appropriate
exhibits. The other alternative is to have a subpoena issued, and have them testify
at the hearing. Issuance of Subpoenas for Dr. Kanner and Dr. Ward are protectively
requested. The fact that SSA did not provide existing medical records to the exam
doctors, denies due process, and denies mental disability accommodation, because
of Claimant’s repeatedly documented poor insight into his health as a result of his
mental disabilities, and materially confused memory confirmed by the death
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 18 of 21

19
certificates of his brother, mother and father, (Exhibit D), that demonstrate that
Claimant is in a material state of denial of his major health issues.
The Medical Professionals Should Have Reviewed Claimant’s Prior Medical
Records, Including EKGs, Blood Test History, Rapid Major Weight Losses – Prior
Diagnosis of Anorexia, Hypertensive Episodes, Prior Diagnosis of Insomnia, Etc.,
Since They Present Some of the Most Tangible & Objective Evidence Required in
Assessing Claimant’s Health, Particularly For a Patient With Poor Insight & In
Denial – Dr. Kanner Should Now Be Specifically Requested to Review This
Information or Be Subpoenaed to Testify at the Hearing.
[ECF No. 28 at 11] (emphasis omitted).
In this case, the ALJ properly considered the opinions of Dr. Kanner and Dr. Ward and
found both opinions were not persuasive. The ALJ found Dr. Kanner’s opinion that Plaintiff could
have frequently lifted up to twenty pounds and occasionally lifted up to fifty pounds, carried up to
twenty pounds occasionally, sit for forty minutes at a time for a total of four hours, stand and/or
walk for twenty minutes at a time for a total of two hours, needed a cane for long distances but not
short distances, frequently operated foot controls with the right foot, occasionally operated foot
controls with the left foot, never climbed, stooped, knelt, or crouched, occasionally crawled, and
frequently operated a motor vehicle, not supported by the medical record. [ECF No. 10 at 466–
67]. The medical record showed Plaintiff was in no acute distress with normal cardiovascular
findings, normal musculoskeletal findings, normal feet findings, and normal ambulation with
normal gait. [ECF No. 10-12 at 154, 160–61, 166, 251–52, 275].
Further, the ALJ found Dr. Ward’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s mental limitations not
persuasive. [ECF No. 10 at 467–68]. Specifically, the ALJ found Dr. Ward’s opinion was not
consistent with the medical record which revealed Plaintiff often had normal mental status findings
during that time. [ECF Nos. 10-12 at 154, 160–61, 166, 251; 10-13 at 154]. Plaintiff fails to show
how the ALJ deprived him of a full and fair hearing by not calling Dr. Kanner and Dr. Ward as
witnesses. Plaintiff also fails to show any prejudice arising from the doctors not testifying at the
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 19 of 21

20
hearing. See Beshia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 328 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (“In social
security disability case, failure of the [ALJ] to subpoena doctor, who was one-time consultative
examiner, for hearing did not violate claimant’s due process rights, absent showing of prejudice;
ALJ considered doctor’s report, but ultimately rejected its conclusion concerning claimant’s work
capacity in light of other medical evidence.”).
E. Eighth Amendment Violations
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the SSA is subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment by
forcing him to seek a job which resulted in Plaintiff falling and being hospitalized in August 2025.
[ECF No. 28 at 12]. As part of Plaintiff’s argument, Attorney Schultz once again mentions the
videos from the OIG investigation. [Id.]. Defendant responds that the issue was “raised in merely
a perfunctory way with no citations or case law to support that any action of the agency, particularly
the agency merely doing its administrative duty in evaluating disability cases, can result in a
violation of the Eighth Amendment.” [ECF No. 33 at 10]. Notably, the ALJ decision was rendered
on June 8, 2023, two years before Plaintiff was hospitalized. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to
sufficiently allege how the SSA violated his Eight Amendment right against cruel and usual
punishment by forcing him to obtain a job considering that Plaintiff has been found to be disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act since October 18, 2021.4
4 In his brief Plaintiff attempts to incorporate a supplemental submission to the SSA’s Appeals
Council. [ECF No. 28 at 13]. However, merely referencing previous arguments raises them only
in a perfunctory way, and the Court will not consider them. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (the Eleventh Circuit has “long held that an appellant abandons
a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner
without supporting arguments and authority.”).
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 20 of 21

21
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Order the
Social Security Administration to File Concealed Evidence into the Record [ECF Nos. 26, 27] be
DENIED, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 33] be GRANTED, and the
ALJ’s decision be AFFIRMED.
Objections to this Report may be filed with the district judge within FOURTEEN (14)
days of receipt of a copy of the Report. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo
determination by the district judge of anything in this Report and shall constitute a waiver of a
party’s “right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977
F.3d 1185, 1191–92 (11th Cir. 2020); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
SIGNED this 10th day of February, 2026.
LISETTE M. REID
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: U.S. District Judge David S. Leibowitz;
Counsel of Record
Case 9:25-cv-80311-DSL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 21 of 21