Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTINA PRATER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-13-AW-MJF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Christina Prater 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 AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
A. 	Procedural History
On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance
benefits (DIB) alleging a disability-onset date of October 8, 2020. Tr. 11.
The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied her claim initially and
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 11

Page 2 of 11
on reconsideration. Id. On February 9, 2024, the administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) conducted a telephonic hearing. Id. On August 20, 2024,
the ALJ held a supplemental hearing. Id. On September 5, 2024, the ALJ
issued a written decision and found that Plaintiff was not disabled. Tr.
21. The appeals council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Tr. 103.
Thus, 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.
B. 	The ALJ’s Findings
In denying Plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ made the following findings
under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v):
1. 	Plaintiff met the insured status-requirements of the Social
Security Act (“the Act”) through December 31, 2021.
2. 	Plaintiff 	had 	not 	engaged 	in 	substantial 	gainful 	activity
during the period of her alleged onset date of October 8, 2020, through
December 31, 2021.
3. 	Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: disorders of
the spine and hips; thyroid disorder; and fibromyalgia.
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 11

Page 3 of 11
4. 	Plaintiff 	did 	not 	have 	an 	impairment 	or 	combination 	of
impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the
listed impairments.
5. 	Plaintiff 	had 	the 	residual 	functional 	capacity 	(“RFC”) 	to
perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) with the
additional 	following 	limitations: 	no 	more 	than 	frequent 	balancing,
stooping, 	kneeling, 	crouching, 	crawling; 	no 	more 	than 	occasional
climbing; no concentrated exposure to extreme temperatures, wetness,
humidity, vibration, dangerous machinery, unprotected heights, and
pulmonary irritants.1
6. 	Plaintiff 	had 	no 	past 	relevant 	work, 	but 	given 	her 	age,
education, work experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform.
7. 	Plaintiff was not disabled, as defined in the Act.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The District Court’s review of the Commissioner’s final decision is
limited. 	The 	District 	Court 	reviews 	the 	Commissioner’s 	decision 	to
1 The undersigned identifies only those limitations in the RFC that are
relevant to the argument raised by Plaintiff on appeal.
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 11

Page 4 of 11
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). The District Court reviews questions of law
de novo. 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, the 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.; Consol. Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B.,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). 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.
Pursuant 	to 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	§ 404.1520(a)(4) 	the 	Commissioner
analyzes a disability claim in five steps:
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 11

Page 5 of 11
1. 	Is the individual currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity?
2. 	Does the individual have any severe impairments?
3. 	Does 	the 	individual 	have 	any 	severe 	impairments 	or
combination of impairments that meet or equal those listed in 20 C.F.R.
Part 404?
4. 	Does the individual have the RFC to perform work despite
limitations, and are there any impairments that prevent past relevant
work?
5. 	Do the individual’s impairments prevent other work? 2
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a severe impairment
that keeps her from performing past relevant work. See Goode v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 966 F.3d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 2020). If the plaintiff
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 plaintiff’s impairments, the plaintiff can perform.
2 Generally, the same legal standards apply to claims for DIB and SSI,
but separate parallel statutes and regulations govern each claim. See 20
C.F.R. §§ 404, 416. Citations of statutes or regulations found in quoted
court decisions in this report and recommendation should be considered
to refer to the appropriate parallel provision.
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 11

Page 6 of 11
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 she cannot perform the work suggested by the Commissioner.
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Plaintiff’s Challenge to ALJ Bernard Porter’s 2020 Decision
Fails Because It Is Not Before the District Court
Plaintiff 	challenges 	the 	ALJ’s 	evaluation 	of 	her 	fibromyalgia,
arguing that “ALJ Fitzgerald did not sufficiently explain how the effects
of plaintiff’s fibromyalgia were taken into account, as it is not evident
from the determined residual functional capacity.” Doc. 15 at 15. But the
language Plaintiff cites in support of this contention, Doc. 15 at 13–14;
Tr. 94, is from ALJ Bernard Porter’s 2020 decision, not ALJ Fitzgerald’s
2024 decision. Tr. 98. Because ALJ Porter’s decision currently is not
before the District Court for review, and because another court already
affirmed ALJ Porter’s decision, see See Prater v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-cv-86-
GRJ (N.D. 	Fla. 	July 1, 	2022), 	Plaintiff’s challenge 	to 	ALJ 	Porter’s
analysis necessarily fails. In re St. Laurent, 991 F.2d 672, 675 (11th Cir.
1993); Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245, 254 (D.C.
Cir. 1992).
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 11

Page 7 of 11
B. 	The ALJ Did Not Err in Evaluating Plaintiff’s Fibromyalgia
Under SSR 12-2p
Plaintiff also contends that ALJ Fitzgerald failed to follow SSR 12-
2p. Doc. 15 at 11. Plaintiff asserts that she is challenging the ALJ’s RFC
determination at Step 5. Plaintiff, however, relies on language from SSR
12-2p which requires an ALJ to use specific criteria to determine whether
fibromyalgia is a medically determinable impairment at Step 2 of the
sequential process. Doc. 15 at 16 (noting that SSR 12-2p provides “two
alternatives 	for 	evaluating 	whether 	a 	claimant’s 	fibromyalgia 	is 	a
medically 	determinable 	impairment”). 	The 	record 	reflects 	that 	ALJ
Fitzgerald correctly applied SSR 12-2p at Step 2 and determined that
Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was a medically determinable impairment. Tr.
14. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ erred.
C. 	The ALJ Did Not Err in Determining That Plaintiff’s Claim
Fails at Step 5
Plaintiff 	next 	challenges 	the 	ALJ’s 	determination 	at 	Step 	5.
Specifically, 	as 	to 	the 	ALJ’s 	determination 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	residual
functional capacity, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not account for
the limitations caused by Plaintiff’s Fibromyalgia. Doc. 15 at 16.
In determining a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all relevant
evidence in the record, including statements from non-medical sources,
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 7 of 11

Page 8 of 11
including the plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4); see Foote v. Chater, 67
F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, when evaluating a
plaintiff’s statements regarding any limitations caused by Fibromyalgia,
an ALJ must apply the two-step process for evaluating symptoms. First,
the ALJ must determine whether the plaintiff’s medically determinable
impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other
symptoms alleged. Then, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and
persistence of the person’s pain or any other symptoms and determine
the extent to which the symptoms limit the person’s capacity for work.”
SSR 12-2p, 2012 WL 3104869, at *5.
“If objective medical evidence does not substantiate the person’s
statements about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting
effects of symptoms,” the ALJ should consider all of the record evidence
including “the person’s daily activities, medication or other treatments
the person uses, or has used, to alleviate symptoms; the nature and
frequency of the person’s attempts to obtain medical treatment for
symptoms; 	and 	statements 	by 	other 	people 	about 	the 	person’s
symptoms.” SSR 12-2p, 2012 WL 3104869, at *5.
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 8 of 11

Page 9 of 11
ALJ Fitzgerald determined that Plaintiff’s medically determinable
impairments—including Fibromyalgia—could reasonably be expected to
cause the alleged symptoms. Tr. 18. ALJ Fitzgerald, however, concluded
that “the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and
limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the
medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” Tr. 18.
In reaching this conclusion, ALJ Fitzgerald considered Plaintiff’s
complaints of disabling pain and the medical records related to Plaintiff’s
Fibromyalgia. 	Tr. 18. ALJ Fitzgerald found that 	Plaintiff’s medical
records reflected that Plaintiff’s pain, although severe at times, was
sufficiently controlled through prescribed medication. Tr. 17, 964, 1188.
For example, most days, Plaintiff is able to drive, and she works about
two 	days 	per 	week. 	Tr. 	17, 	209. 	Additionally, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that
Plaintiff’s physical examination findings were “generally within normal
limits” and that she reported pain levels averaging “only 2 out of 10.” Tr.
17, 451, 537.
The ALJ also found that there “is a high degree of consistency” in
the reports of medical personnel who assessed Plaintiff. Tr. 18. These
reports found 	that 	Plaintiff had the 	requisite 	muscle 	strength 	and
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 9 of 11

Page 10 of 11
capacity to perform light work. Tr. 3052, 3392. This is sufficient evidence
to support the ALJ’s RFC determination.
Although Plaintiff argues that she is disabled due to her “lack of
reliability,” Plaintiff does not cite any evidence that specifically supports
this assertion. Doc. 15 at 17. Nor has Plaintiff shown that the ALJ
improperly disregarded any such evidence in evaluating Plaintiff’s RFC.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ committed
reversible error.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision 	and DISMISS this
action.
2. 	Enter FINAL JUDGMENT, pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision.
3. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 6th day of January 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 10 of 11

Page 11 of 11
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 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
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 1:25-cv-00013-AW-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 11 of 11