Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

KEREN SARAI CONCEPCION

BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:25-cv-02147-AAS

FRANK BISIGNANO,

Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff Keren Sarai Concepcion Bonilla requests judicial review of a

decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying her

claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB) 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 parties’ memoranda, the

Commissioner’s decision is REMANDED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Concepcion Bonilla filed an application for a period of disability and

DIB on April 22, 2021. (Tr. 22, 327–33). In a decision dated September 24,

2020, Ms. Concepcion Bonilla was found disabled beginning on May 25, 2018.

(Tr. 22, 76–90, 126–133). On January 5, 2023, in an initial determination, the

Social Security Administration (SSA) found that Ms. Concepcion Bonilla was

no longer disabled as of that date. (Tr. 22, 91–102, 134–137). Upon

reconsideration, a State agency Disability Hearing Officer upheld this

determination. (Tr. 22, 115–125). Thereafter, Ms. Concepcion Bonilla filed a

request for a hearing. (Tr. 22, 148).

On November 5, 2024, an ALJ held an administrative hearing. (Tr. 22,

37–54). In a decision dated December 18, 2024, the ALJ found Ms. Concepcion

Bonilla’s disability ended on January 5, 2023, and she did not become disabled

since that date. (Tr. 16–36). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Concepcion

Bonilla’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision final. (Tr. 1–8). Ms.

Concepcion Bonilla now requests judicial review of the Commissioner’s final

decision. (Doc. 1).

II. NATURE OF DISABILITY CLAIM

A. Background

Ms. Concepcion Bonilla was 50 years old on January 5, 2023, the date

the ALJ found that medical improvement had occurred. (Tr. 134–37, 330). Ms.

Concepcion Bonilla has a high school education and no past relevant work

experience. (Tr. 29).

B. Summary of the Decision

The ALJ must follow five steps when evaluating a disability claim.1 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). First, if a claimant is engaged in substantial gainful

activity,2 she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant has

no impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit her

physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, she has no severe

impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(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, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Fourth, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent her from doing past

relevant work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The ALJ

determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) at this fourth

step.3 Id. Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering her RFC, age,

education, and past work) do not prevent her from performing work in the

1 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).

2 Substantial gainful activity is paid work that requires significant physical or mental

activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572.

3 A claimant’s RFC is the level of physical and mental work she can consistently

perform despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).

national economy, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

The most recent favorable ALJ decision finding that Ms. Concepcion

Bonilla was disabled is dated September 24, 2020. (Tr. 24). This most recent

favorable decision is the comparison point decision (CPD). (Id.). At the time of

the CPD, Ms. Concepcion Bonilla had these medically determinable

impairments: degenerative disc disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and

hypertension. (Id.). These impairments resulted in an RFC of less than a full

range for sedentary work.4 (Id.). Specifically,

[Ms. Concepcion Bonilla] could lift/carry, push and pull 10 pounds

occasionally and a negligible amount of weight frequently. She

could stand/walk for 2 hours and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour

workday with normal breaks. She could occasionally stoop, kneel,

crouch, crawl, balance on uneven surfaces and she could

occasionally climb ramps or stairs. She could never climb ropes or

scaffolds, but she could occasionally climb ladders. She could have

no concentrated exposure to unprotected heights or dangerous

moving machinery. She could frequently handle and finger with

her left upper extremity and occasionally handle and finger with

her right dominant upper extremity. She would be off task at least

10% of the workday and/or absent from work at least one day per

month due to pain.

(Id.).

Here, at step one of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found

4 “Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally

lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a

sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking

and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if

walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met.”

20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a).

that, through the date of the December 18, 2024 decision, Ms. Concepcion

Bonilla has not engaged in substantial gainful activity. (Id.). At step two, the

ALJ found that since January 5, 2023, Ms. Concepcion Bonilla has these

medically determinable impairments: degenerative disc disease, hypertension,

carpal tunnel syndrome, and major depressive disorder. (Id.). At step three,

the ALJ found that since January 5, 2023, Ms. Concepcion Bonilla has not had

an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled

the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 1. (Id.).

The ALJ found that medical improvement occurred on January 5, 2023.

(Tr. 26). The ALJ further found that since January 5, 2023, the impairments

present at the time of the CPD decreased in medical severity to the point where

Ms. Concepcion Bonilla has the RFC to perform light work,5 except,

[Ms. Concepcion Bonilla can] sit, stand and walk for six hours each

in an eight hour workday; occasionally climb but never climb

ladders, ropes or scaffolds; occasional bending, kneeling, stooping,

crouching, crawling; must avoid concentrated exposure to hazards

such as heights and machinery; frequent fingering bilaterally.

5 “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).

(Id.).

Ms. Concepcion Bonilla has no past relevant work. (Tr. 29). At step five,

with the assistance of a vocational expert, the ALJ then determined that, since

January 5, 2023, Ms. Concepcion Bonilla can perform a significant number of

jobs in the national economy. (Id.). Ms. Concepcion Bonilla can perform work

as a marker, routing clerk, and housekeeping cleaner. (Tr. 30). As a result, the

ALJ found Ms. Concepcion Bonilla’s disability ended on January 5, 2023, and

she has not become disabled again since that date. (Id.).

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 her

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 recently 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 entire record, considering both the 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

Ms. Concepcion Bonilla argues that the ALJ failed to properly analyze

whether medical improvement occurred as of January 5, 2023. (Doc. 14). Ms.

Concepcion Bonilla contends that the ALJ failed to properly compare her prior

and current medical evidence to determine whether medical severity had

decreased. (Id., p. 6). In response, the Commissioner contends that substantial

evidence supports the ALJ’s findings that Ms. Concepcion Bonilla experienced

medical improvement as of January 5, 2023, and that her medical

improvement was related to her ability to work. (Doc. 18).

“An ALJ may terminate a claimant’s benefits if there is substantial

evidence that there has been medical improvement in the claimant’s

impairments related to his ability to work, and the claimant is now able to

engage in substantial gainful activity.” Klaes v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 499

F. App’x 895, 896 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(f)(1); 20 C.F.R. §

404.1594(a)). To determine whether benefits should be terminated, the ALJ

follows an eight-step process:

(1) whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful

activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has an impairment or

combination of impairments that meet or equal a listed

impairment; (3) if not, whether there has been medical

improvement; (4) if so, whether the improvement is related to the

claimant’s ability to work; (5) if there is no medical improvement

or if medical improvement is not related to the claimant’s ability

to work, whether an exception to medical improvement applies; (6)

if there is medical improvement related to the claimant’s ability to

work or if an exception applies, whether the claimant has a severe

impairment; (7) if so, whether the claimant can perform his past

relevant work; and (8) if not, whether the claimant can perform

other work.

Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f)).

Step three’s “medical improvement” is defined as “any decrease in the

medical severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) which was present at the

time of the most recent favorable medical decision that [the claimant was]

disabled . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(b)(1). “A finding that there has been a

decrease in medical severity ‘must be based on changes (improvement) in the

symptoms, signs and/or laboratory findings associated with [the claimant’s]

impairment(s). . .’” Klaes, 499 F. App’x at 896 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §

404.1594(b)(1)). A decrease in medical severity is determined by comparing

“prior and current medical evidence which must show that there have been

changes (improvement) in the symptoms, signs or laboratory findings

associated with that impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(c)(1). “The ALJ must

‘actually compare’ the previous and current medical evidence to show that an

improvement occurred.” Klaes, 499 F. App’x at 896 (quoting Freeman v.

Heckler, 739 F.2d 565, 566 (11th Cir. 1984)); see also Reyes v. O’Malley, No.

8:23-cv-123-AEP, 2024 WL 939597, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2024); Lane o/b/o

R.W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:20-cv-647-SPF, 2021 WL 3701559, at *3

(M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2021). The ALJ’s decision must be remanded for the ALJ

to apply the correct legal standard “[i]f the ALJ fails to evaluate the prior

medical evidence and make such a comparison . . .” Klaes, 499 F. App’x at 896.

Here, the ALJ failed to properly compare Ms. Concepcion Bonilla’s prior

and current medical evidence to determine whether medical severity had

decreased. Although the ALJ stated that she compared this evidence, she could

not have done so because a significant amount of prior evidence was not

included in the record. The administrative record contains Ms. Concepcion

Bonilla’s most recent favorable decision, dated September 24, 2020, which

discusses evidence not contained in the current record. (See Tr. 76–90). For

example, the “Summary of Evidence” notes that certain evidence was

considered in Ms. Concepcion Bonilla’s case when the SSA determined she was

disabled.6 None of this evidence appears in the current record.

The Commissioner argues that this error is harmless because

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Ms. Concepcion Bonilla

experienced medical improvement. The Commissioner presents no law

supporting this argument in the context of a termination-of-benefits case,

where the ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standard by failing to compare

the prior and current medical evidence. As Klaes specifically states that this

failure requires remand, 499 F. App’x at 896, the Commissioner’s argument is

rejected.

The ALJ’s obligation to compare the prior medical evidence with the

current medical evidence is outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(c)(1), which states:

Medical improvement is any decrease in the medical severity of

impairment(s) present at the time of the most recent favorable

medical decision that you were disabled or continued to be disabled

and is determined by a comparison of prior and current medical

evidence which must show that there have been changes

6 Specifically, these medical records include: ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF 8F

received on 09/04/2020; ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF 14f received on 09/04/2020;

APS Clinic of Puerto Rico received on 08/12/2020; Neurological Services of Orlando

received on 07/10/2020; Orange Blossom Family Health Center received on

07/02/2020; SYLMA CUEVAS PADRO PSYD received on 11/01/2019; FARMACIA

NEREIDA received on 08/20/2019, SAMUEL RIVERA NATAL MD received on

08/20/2019; CARLOS F CASIANO TORRES MD received on 02/26/2019; CARLOS F

CASIANO TORRES MD received on 02/26/2019; PR DISAB PROC UNIT received on

12/13/2018; APS AMERICAN PSYCH SYSTEMS received on 12/12/2018; ARECIBO

RADIOLOGY OPEN MRI CENTER received on 12/04/2018; CORPORACION

FONDO DEL SEGURO received on 12/04/2018; CLINICA AMBULATORIA DR.

OTOMAN received on 12/04/2018; DR. JUAN C. PERAZA DELGADO received on

12/03/2018; MELBA SOTOMAYOR, MD received on 12/03/2018. (Tr. 509–510)

(capitalization in original).

(improvement) in the symptoms, signs or laboratory findings

associated with that impairment(s).

(emphasis added).

Section 404.1594(c)(1) applied when the ALJ conducted the hearing and

when she issued her decision. Thus, the ALJ’s failure to properly compare the

prior and current medical evidence requires reversal. See also Rivera v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:17-CV-2021-ORL-41KRS, 2018 WL 5300201, at *6

(M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2018) (“Because the ALJ did not compare the [prior medical]

evidence with the [current medical] evidence, the finding that Rivera’s

disability ceased is not supported by substantial evidence or correct application

of the law.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 5293228 (M.D. Fla.

Oct. 25, 2018); Brown v. Berryhill, No. 3:16-CV-1344-J-34JRK, 2017 WL

6541455, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2017) (remanding because “the ALJ did not

actually perform the required comparison of the original medical evidence with

the new medical evidence”), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL

6536741 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2017).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Commissioner’s decision is REMANDED,

and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Ms. Concepcion Bonilla.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 21, 2026.

Aranda. □□□ Sasone_

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE

United States Magistrate Judge

12