Anthony E. Porcelli

How Judge Porcelli rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2009-08-08
Education
Stetson University, B.A. (1993); Jacksonville University, M.B.A. (1995); Stetson University College of Law, J.D. (1998, top three of class)
Signed orders read
23

How Judge Porcelli decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Brand-versus-generic pharmaceutical liability: follows the majority and Florida rule that a brand-name manufacturer owes no duty to a plaintiff injured by a competitor's generic version that it never made or sold, and expressly declines to follow the broader duty rule in California's Conte v. Wyeth. Product identification ('the product which allegedly caused the injury was manufactured or sold by the defendant') is treated as fundamental, defeating negligence, strict-liability, warranty, and fraud theories together.

“The Court cannot impose a duty of care on Defendants here where the generic manufacturers are responsible for the contents of their label, and where the Defendants lacked direct control as to the contents of that label.”

Procedural preferences

In consent Social Security appeals, Porcelli applies deferential substantial-evidence review but remands when the administrative reasoning is too incomplete for meaningful review. The recent full-text contested set spans both affirmances and remands, with claimant-brief-to-order intervals of 188 to 366 days.

“The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order.”

Medical-improvement cases require an actual comparison between the evidence supporting the prior favorable disability determination and the current evidence. A passing reference to the earlier record does not permit a finding that medical severity decreased.

“the ALJ errored in determining a medical improvement had occurred the case is reversed and remanded for application of the correct legal standard.”

Residual-functional-capacity explanations must resolve material limitations rather than merely acknowledge the underlying evidence. Porcelli has remanded where the ALJ did not explain the effect of visual disturbance, a non-severe urinary impairment, or medically necessary cane use on the claimant's ability to work.

“the ALJ never affirmatively rejects (or adopts) Claimant's need to use a cane for ambulation. Without such a determination, it is not possible for this Court to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.”

Record development is driven by evidentiary sufficiency and prejudice. Porcelli does not require another consultative opinion when the existing record supports an informed decision and contains no unfair evidentiary gap; the claimant retains the burden to establish disability.

“an ALJ is not required to order a consultive examination when the record contains sufficient evidence for the ALJ to make an informed decision.”

Childhood-disability domains are evaluated separately within the whole-child analysis. A marked limitation in attending and completing tasks does not automatically require a marked limitation in acquiring and using information when the broader record supports different findings.

“There is no such requirement that a finding of marked limitation in one functional domain mandates a similar finding in another functional domain.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Levine v. Wyeth, Inc.
8:09-cv-00854 · 2010-01-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons given below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Summary Judgment be GRANTED in favor of Defendants.”

Kirby v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-01188 · 2024-07-24
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.”

Bellow v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-01049 · 2024-08-20
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 29) is GRANTED.”

Ayala v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-00467 · 2024-03-05
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-00191 · 2024-03-14
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.”

Burgess v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-00290 · 2024-03-07
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”

Ashcraft v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-00344 · 2024-05-17
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 20) is GRANTED.”

Heffner v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-00404 · 2024-03-05
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.”

Kirby v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-01188 · 2024-08-20
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 29) is GRANTED.”

Griffin v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-00880 · 2024-08-07
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.”

Bellow v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-01049 · 2024-07-22
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.”

DeArce Reyes v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:23-cv-00123 · 2024-03-05
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled civil docket is dominated by consent Social Security appeals, with additional attorney-fee matters and occasional referred civil recommendations. It is descriptive rather than comprehensive, and no authoritative case-disposition baseline was available for the period.

Draft for Judge Porcelli with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Porcelli, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Porcelli's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace