GERALD W. TIMMS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Axilrod v. State, 799 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
  …d. (quoting McDaniel, 800 F. 2d at 1031). Under step three of the analysis, evidence of the claimant’s impairments is compared to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful work. See Howson v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 743 So. 2d 564, 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). A claimant is disabled if he or she has an impairment that is listed or that is equal to a listed impairment. See id. (emphasis added). Where a claimant has more than one impairment, but each does not meet or equal [*1108]…
• Sapp v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families District:15 Martin Unit:88599, 801 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
  …reality analysis under steps three and five was improperly carried out. A hearing officer’s findings must contain detailed evaluation of the criteria and evidence relating the evidence to his conclusions. See Howson v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 743 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). If, in step five the hearing officer determines that the claimant can do substantial gainful work in the economy, it is incumbent upon the hearing officer to determine the sort of work the claimant can do. See Snyder v. Dep’t of…
• Cordary v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 978 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
  …states that after comparing Cordary’s impairments to those listed, the hearing officer does not find them to be severe. This is precisely the analysis this Court found insufficient in Axilrod. See also Howson v. Fla. Dep’t. of Children and Families, 743 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (reversing an order that identified listings in the appendix which were reviewed, but failed to refer to factual findings or evidence). Thus, the order here is deficient because it does not explain why the appellant’s impairments…

Authorities Cited

• Singletary v. Jones, 681 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)