# Garcia

> District Court, M.D. Florida · January 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239248

## Case

- **Full name:** Juan Garcia v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** January 7, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239248

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that step two acts as a filter and “allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected”
- finding remand necessary where the record revealed evidentiary gaps in the plaintiff's medical record and holding that absent proof to the contrary, it must be assumed that the missing evidence would have supported the plaintiff’s claims of disability

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JUAN GARCIA,

Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:24-cv-2410-AAS

FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,1

Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER
Juan Garcia2 requests judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner
of Social Security (Commissioner) denying his claim for disability insurance
benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) under the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g). After reviewing the record, including
the transcript of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ),
the administrative record, the pleadings, and the memoranda submitted by the
parties, the Commissioner’s decision is REMANDED.

1 Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025. Under
Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Bisignano should be
substituted as the defendant in this suit.

2 Mr. Garcia’s former name was George Michael Zimmerman. (Tr. 167–68). Both
names appear throughout the administrative record.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 3, 2017, Mr. Garcia applied for a period of disability and DIB,

again alleging an onset date of February 26, 2012. (Tr. 97, 103). On August 10,
2017, the claim was denied at the initial level. (Tr. 141–43). Mr. Garcia did not
appeal the decision. (Tr. 48–49, 76–78).
On November 27, 2020, Mr. Garcia filed applications for DIB and SSI

benefits, alleging a disability onset date of February 26, 2012. (Tr. 105–06,
283–91). Mr. Garcia’s claims were denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr.
145–53, 172–86). Mr. Garcia requested a hearing before an ALJ, which was
held on November 3, 2022. (Tr. 73–96, 187–90). On March 30, 2023, the ALJ

held a supplemental hearing. (Tr. 44–72). On July 14, 2023, the ALJ found Mr.
Garcia not disabled and issued an unfavorable decision. (Tr. 20–43). On August
16, 2024, the Appeals Council denied Mr. Garcia’s request for review, making
the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner.3 (Tr. 1–7). Mr.

Garcia now requests review of the ALJ’s final decision. (Doc. 1).
II. NATURE OF DISABILITY CLAIM
A. Background
Mr. Garcia was 28 years old on his alleged disability onset date and 39

3 “When, as in this case, the ALJ denies benefits and the [Appeals Council] denies
review, [the court] review[s] the ALJ's decision as the Commissioner’s final decision.”
Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
years old on the date of the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 35). Mr. Garcia has a high
school education and past relevant work experience as an automobile

salesperson. (Tr. 35, 67). Mr. Garcia alleges disability due to post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) and a herniated disc in the lower back. (Tr. 317).
B. Summary of the Decision
The ALJ must follow five steps when evaluating a claim for disability.4

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). First, if a claimant is engaged in
substantial gainful activity,5 he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b),
416.920(b). Second, if a claimant has no impairment or combination of
impairments that significantly limit his physical or mental ability to perform

basic work activities, he has no severe impairment and is not disabled. 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031
(11th Cir. 1986) (stating that step two acts as a filter and “allows only claims
based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected”). Third, if a claimant’s

impairments fail to meet or equal an impairment in the Listings, he is not
disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). Fourth, if a claimant’s
impairments do not prevent him from doing past relevant work, he is not

4 If the ALJ determines the claimant is disabled at any step of the sequential analysis,
the analysis ends. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).
5 Substantial gainful activity is paid work that requires significant physical or mental
activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572, 416.972.
disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). At this fourth step, the ALJ
determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). Id. Fifth, if a

claimant’s impairments (considering his RFC, age, education, and past work)
do not prevent him from performing work that exists in the national economy,
he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g).
Here, the ALJ reopened Mr. Garcia’s application filed in August 2017.

(Tr. 23). The ALJ determined Mr. Garcia had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since February 26, 2012, the alleged disability onset date. (Id.).
The ALJ found Mr. Garcia has these severe impairments: degenerative disc
disease, obesity, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), PTSD,

depression, and anxiety. (Tr. 25). However, the ALJ concluded Mr. Garcia’s
impairments or combination of impairments failed to meet or medically equal
the severity of an impairment in the Listings. (Id.).
The ALJ then found Mr. Garcia had an RFC to perform a full range of

light work,6 with these exceptions:
lifting 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; carrying
20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; sitting for 6

6 “Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting
or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may
be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or
standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling
of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of
light work, you must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities. If
someone can do light work, we determine that he or she can also do sedentary work,
unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or inability
to sit for long periods of time.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b).
hours, standing for 6 hours, walking for 6 hours and he [can]
push/pull as much as can lift/carry. [Mr. Garcia] can climb ramps
and stairs occasionally, stoop occasionally, kneel occasionally,
crouch occasionally, crawl occasionally. [Mr. Garcia] can work at
unprotected heights occasionally, moving mechanical parts
occasionally, in vibration occasionally. [Mr. Garcia] is able to
perform simple, routine tasks, able to perform simple work-related
decisions, is able to interact with supervisors, coworkers, and
interact with the public occasionally.

(Tr. 28).
Based on these findings and the testimony of a vocational expert (VE),
the ALJ determined Mr. Garcia could not perform his past relevant work. (Tr.
35). However, the VE testified that an individual with Mr. Garcia’s age,
education, work experience, and RFC could perform other jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy. (Id.). Specifically, Mr. Garcia can
perform the jobs of router, routing clerk, checker, lamp shade assembler, table
worker, and loader. (Tr. 36). As a result, the ALJ concluded Mr. Garcia was not
disabled. (Tr. 36).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Review of the ALJ’s decision is limited to reviewing whether the ALJ
applied correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supports his
findings. McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 1988);
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). Substantial evidence is more
than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance. Dale v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d
1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). In other words, there must be
sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept as enough to support the

conclusion. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995) (citations
omitted). The Supreme Court explained, “whatever the meaning of
‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is
not high.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019).

A reviewing court must affirm a decision supported by substantial
evidence “even if the proof preponderates against it.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357
F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The court must not
make new factual determinations, reweigh evidence, or substitute its judgment

for the Commissioner’s decision. Id. at 1240 (citation omitted). Instead, the
court must view the whole record, considering evidence favorable and
unfavorable to the Commissioner’s decision. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560; see also
Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted)

(stating that the reviewing court must scrutinize the entire record to determine
the reasonableness of the Commissioner’s factual determinations).
B. Issue on Appeal
Mr. Garcia argues that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the

record due to missing evidence from St. Germain Chiropractic, Karen Larkey,
Psy. D., and Altamonte Family Practice. (Doc. 10, pp. 5–9). In response, the
Commissioner contends Mr. Garcia has not adequately shown there was a gap
in the records or that evidence related to his functional capacity is missing
from the evidence. (Doc. 16, pp. 5–12).

Because a hearing before an ALJ is not an adversary proceeding, the ALJ
has a basic obligation to develop a full and fair record. Cowart v. Schweiker,
662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). This obligation exists even when counsel
represents a claimant and requires the ALJ to “scrupulously and

conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts.” Id.
(citations and quotations omitted); Jones v. Astrue, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1154
(S.D. Ala. 2012) (“[T]he ALJ must probe into all relevant facts, even where a
claimant is represented by counsel.”) (citing Cowart, 662 F.2d at 735). Further,

the ALJ must be “especially diligent in ensuring that favorable as well as
unfavorable facts and circumstances are elicited.” Cowart, 662 F.2d at 735; see
also Fontanez v. Barnhart, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1357 (M.D. Fla. 2002)
(remanding the case where the ALJ failed to determine the significance of the

claimant’s limited test scores). Nonetheless, a claimant must show prejudice
before a court can find that their due process rights have been violated to such
a degree that the case must be remanded to the Commissioner for further
development of the record. Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 931, 935 (11th Cir. 1995)

(citations omitted).
Ultimately, a claimant bears the burden of proving that they are disabled
and must provide evidence to support their claim. Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d
1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003). In evaluating whether a case should be remanded
for an ALJ’s purported failure to fully develop the record, courts consider

whether there are evidentiary gaps in the record that result in unfairness or
“clear prejudice” to the claimant. Brown, 44 F.3d at 935; see also Graham v.
Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1423 (11th Cir. 1997).
Mr. Garcia filed his initial application for a period of disability and DIB

on April 3, 2017. (Tr. 97, 103). On August 10, 2017, the claim was denied. (Tr.
141–43). In the Disability Determination Explanation dated August 9, 2017,
this evidence of record was identified: (1) Cindy Herzog, M.D., (2) St. Germain
Chiropractic, (3) Lake Mary Family Care, and (4) Lake Mary Family Care. (Tr.

98–99). On August 10, 2017, Mr. Garcia’s claim for a period of disability and
DIB was denied. (Tr. 141–43).
At the administrative hearing held on March 30, 2023, Mr. Garcia’s
counsel brought Mr. Garcia’s prior disability application to the ALJ’s attention.

(Tr. 48–49). While the current administrative record contains records from
Lake Mary Family Care and Cynthia Herzog,7 it does not include records from
St. Germain Chiropractic. The ALJ indicated that he was reviewing
“something from Dr. Karen Mularkey in 2017,”8 but that document is not in

7 The correct name is “Cynthia N. Herzog, LCSW, CAP, ICADC.” (Tr. 674).

8 The hearing transcript inaccurately transcribed Dr. Larkey’s last name as
“Mularkey” (Tr. 49).
the file. (Tr. 49). However, the ALJ stated at the hearing that he possessed the
documentation supporting Mr. Garcia’s prior application and that this

documentation would be provided to Mr. Garcia’s counsel for his review and
comment before reaching his disability determination. (Tr. 48–49, 71). This
documentation was not provided to Mr. Garcia’s counsel. In addition, at the
hearing, the ALJ stated he would provide Mr. Garcia’s counsel with “a burned

disc [CD] of the records” for his review. (Tr. 71–72). This CD was also not
provided.
On April 6, 2023, Mr. Garcia’s counsel sent a letter to the ALJ inquiring
about his request for medical records from Altamonte Family Practice, where

Mr. Garcia was treated following the incident in 2012.9 (Tr. 402). Mr. Garcia’s
counsel further stated, “I believe you also stated that you would provide us
with a CD to ensure that no medical was missing (Presumably, you were
referring to his initial applications), for which I am grateful.” (Id.). Mr. Garcia’s

counsel also noted the ALJ indicated he would request Mr. Garcia’s medical
records from Lake Mary Family Care. (Id.).
On June 16, 2023, the ALJ sent Mr. Garcia’s counsel a letter indicating
he obtained this additional evidence and would enter into the record as exhibits

9 Mr. Garcia’s Comprehensive Vocational Evaluation Report from the Altamonte
Family Proactive diagnosed Mr. Garcia with herniated discs 2012, and he received
follow-up care with that practice. (Tr. 815).
18F and 19F, respectively: (1) Office Treatment Records Lake Family dated
June 12, 2014, through January 15, 2018, and (2) Office Treatment Records

Lake Family dated July 7, 2021, through March 6, 2023. (Tr. 403). There was
no further communication to Mr. Garcia’s counsel regarding any attempts
made to obtain the records from Altamonte Family Practice, nor was a CD ever
sent with Mr. Garcia’s medical records from his initial application.

The ALJ confirmed he had Mr. Garcia’s prior application documentation
in his possession and that this documentation would be provided to Mr.
Garcia’s counsel for his review and comment. (Tr. 48–49, 71). However, this
documentation was not provided to Mr. Garcia’s counsel, and the current

record reveals that there are missing medical records. Thus, the ALJ failed to
fully and fairly develop the record, and the evidentiary gaps in the record result
in unfairness. See, e.g., Brown, 44 F.3d at 936 (finding remand necessary where
the record revealed evidentiary gaps in the plaintiff's medical record and

holding that absent proof to the contrary, it must be assumed that the missing
evidence would have supported the plaintiff’s claims of disability); Pena v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:19-cv-1804-Orl-MCR, 2021 WL 777886, at
*15 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2021) (“Moreover, to the extent treatment records from

CHM and Dr. Grissom appear to be incomplete [ ] or altogether missing[ ], the
Court also finds this warrants remanding the case.”); Melody B. v. Comm’r,
Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:19-cv-00044-RGV, 2020 WL 13580461, at *14 (N.D. Ga.
Sept. 29, 2020) (“The evidentiary gaps prevented the ALJ from making a full,
fair, and impartial assessment of [claimant’s] RFC and what jobs he may
reasonably pursue.”); Cooper v. Acting Comm’ of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:15-
cv-864-J-MCR, 2017 WL 1135088, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2017) (“The ALJ’s
failure to sufficiently probe the facts regarding the missing mental health
records is prejudicial in light of the evidentiary gaps presented in the record
[where] [mJedical records from . .. mental health providers indicating
treatment for anxiety may shed light on the severity of Plaintiffs mental
impairments in a way that the records before the ALJ cannot.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Commissioner’s decision is REMANDED,
and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Mr. Garcia and close the file.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 7, 2026.

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge

11

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11239248. Public record. Not legal advice.