Several courts in this Circuit have concluded that these or similar limitations, in many cases, negatively impact a claimant's basic work skills. See, e.g., Porter v. Astrue, 2012 WL 4497568, at *6-7 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 28, 2012); Nelson v. Colvin, 2014 WL 1334110, at *5-6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2014). Given the potential impact of these impairments, the ALJ should have provided some explanation or analysis addressing the impact these limitations have on Claimant's basic work skills.

(Doc. 20, p. 13). Although some courts have found the use of the grids appropriate when a claimant was unable to work with the public, see e.g., Garcia-Martinez v. Barnhart, 111 F. App'x 22 (1st Cir. 2004); Woods v. Colvin, No. CIV-13-763-HE, 2014 WL 2801301 (W.D. Okla. May 28, 2014); Ross v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. CIV S-09-1742-CMK, 2011 WL 1081910, (E.D. Cal. March 21, 2011), this court finds the reasoning articulated by the court in Nelson v. Colvin, No. 12-23023-CIV, 2014 WL 1334110 (S.D. Fla. April 3, 2014) to be persuasive. In Nelson, the court addressed a scenario almost identical to the one present here; the ALJ-formulated residual functional capacity indicated the claimant could perform medium work but was restricted from: "climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; work involving unprotected heights and hazardous machinery; exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and poor ventilation; and working with the general public."