may please the court i'm kathleen overton and i represent the appellant started working at sam's club in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight the last four years of her career there she worked as a phone attendant performing significant elements of both receptionist and the store labor job at the age of fifty one she applied for disability benefits ignoring the store labor elements of her past work day found slow not disabled because she could return to the receptionist part of her pa to her past work and actually performed it is she was able to return to both the store labor and the reception as part of her past work generally a claim is found not disabled at step four if she is able to return to her work as she performed before her merriment or as it is generally performed in the national economy when not past work is a composite job however l j must evaluate the claimant's ability to perform her pas t occupations doesn't discuss whether the claimant performs only some of those tasks of the job or all of those tasks of the job the relevant question isn't whether she can go back to the particular job she she in fact was performing all the duties of the receptionist would do well she was performing the duties of receptionist and the duties of a store labor in that of the definition of a composite job that she was performing two separate d o t title now that is that is that the definition of job was a cause job where somebody is performing some of the duties of one job and some of the duties of another but not but not all of the duties of either no that is not the definition of a composite  defendant makes that argument her brief but in the palm specifically the composite job is to find simply has a job that has a blend of two or more occupations one hallmark of a composite job is that takes more than one d o t titles to describe the main  es of that job but the palms in the commissioner in the administrative guidance in the rulings never limits the definition of a composite job as one that only encompasses some of the tasks of each job that is something that the 't doesn't matter if she's doing all the jobs of receptionist or all the jobs of a store labor well let's see if she was doing all the duties of both of those and one was required medium exertion and one was light rulings when it is a composite job may not in the inquiry at step four simply because she is able to perform part of that composite job now if the l j had proceeded to step five and found that she could do other work or found th had transferable skills that would have been a different decision but here the judge never proceeded to that part of the analysis and on its own merit he ended it at step five and that's contrary to the commissioner's own administrative guidance in the p which the commissioner is bound by the composite job issue is different in how a job is generally performed in the national economy started to sixty one does say that a clean it can be found not that she was able to return to work as it is generally performed or per the d o t but that analysis deals with the person performing one duty at a different exertional level then as it is described in the d o t that's not what we had and the situation and the situation she was performing two separate jobs the vocational expert at the hearing looked through the matter looked through the records before providing testimony also heard sloan's testimony at the hearing and testified that her past work was a composite it was a vocational expert that identified the two d o t titles at issue while the receptionist in the store labor job in the a l j decision he found that testimony credible and didn't provide any reason for departing from that vocational experts testimony clone testified about her past work and described forming both th store labor duty she indicated that she had to pull merchandise just to get that merchandise ready for members to come in she had a market she had to use a shopping cart or a flat bed time indeed if you read the deaf missions from the work in that he took the least demanding aspect of her past relevant work the receptionist job and found that she could return that per the d o t however as i said star eighty two sixty one makes clear when that past work is the composite job as it was in this case baled hay may only find the claim it is not the stable she could be part of that composite indeed the palms themselves  economy his job was not a composite job instead this case represents a far more common situation where an l g finds a claimant not disabled based on their ability to perform their password as it's generally performed in the national economy even if the person couldn't necessarily perform their house work as they before in their specific job in the past plaintiffs argument rests in in large part on several statements by the vocational expert at the hearing that plaintiff past work was a composite job between between the receptionist job and the store labor job but the l g was not bound by the vocational expert statements so what is a composite job a composite job is one that has significant elements of two or more occupations and as such has no counterpart in the d o t a job can be a composite job if it takes multiple deal to the job descriptions to locate the main duties of the job that's really the key in this case were the main duties as i hinted at the outset oftentimes there are cases where a person can't perform the job as they performed it but they can form it but they can't perform and as it's generally performed that's because different employers have different requirements in the economy two people could perform a job that falls into the same d o t code but have some some variance in the demands of their job because the demand what it employee has to do is dictated by the employer and the employer has different sixty one this is a fact based determination of the l g has to look at the facts of what that person was actually doing in their job and then determine what the main duties were then if they are performing the main duties of two different jobs then that would be a composite job we couldn't rely on the past work as it's generally performed and then would have to go to step five if they couldn't for the job as they specifically performed it but the key here is that it's a fact based decision based on the main store labor job we're looking at vocational questions at step four there are really two sources of evidence that the algea will look at to determine the demands of the person's job duties so that provides the agency with information to help make that step for determination the other source of information that enables you will rely on is the person's testimony at the hearing generally personally questioned by the representative where the l g a will question the individual about what exactly they did at their past job to get enough information to be able to make that step or finding here i think the record shows that there was some conflict between the information that was in the work history report form and claims testimony at the hearing if you look at the work history report form which we discussed in detail in our brief everything she indicated in the work history report form is consistent with the job of perception ist if you look at the physical and  mental demands of the job as well as the actual duties that she was performing she sat for seven hours a day she didn't have to handle grab or grasp any heavy objects she did things like take calls address questions from customers direct them where to go the heaviest weight she ever lifted at that job per her own work history report was ten pounds she also indicated that she only spent a very small fraction of day handling small items and that consisted primarily of  typing messages that she take on the telephone delivering reports to other employees in the store looking at that description that's completely consistent with the job recession is she was performing all those duties there really wasn't description of  they were consistent with the job the store labor now the hearing her testimony you know was in conflict with what she put on her which is to report form she indicated that she'd go on the floor pull out of this for customers lift objects there up to twenty five pounds but even that testimony didn't really indicate what proportion of the day she spent doing those kinds of activities you know i get that does it matter that if you read d l g s opinion the l g doesn't go through and specifically make findings i want to do these word what word what was involved in it doesn't make it credibility determination that this is a case where the evolving evidence is somehow being manipulated to create a composite job i mean there's none of that i mean that the judge could have looked at the record and said they are making fact findings and hears of the findings that i've made but instead the judge just sort of focuses in on on residual functional capacity and on the disability aspect of the claim rather than  a credibility determination and so what you're asking us i think is to imply a credibility determination based on the ultimate all to come and based on the fact that the book ational expert said sounds like a composite job which is not really the most definition of the endorsement of a finding that there is if in fact a composite job by the ve and it's pretty clear that the judge didn't find the composite job yeah i don't know if it's really a credibility finding  i think the question really is a step for plaintiff have the burden to prove that the demands of her past job were we have this very clear very tito work function report that's entirely consistent with the job of receptionist and then we have her testimony at the hearing which there's really no indication how often she did that did she do it once a day did she do it once a week have and how much time did she spend doing that was it five minutes certainly doesn't based on her work history report so much she spent a significant portion of the day doing that so the judge the clear evidence in this case shows that she was doing the receptionist job you know you could perhaps read into her testimony  step forward requirement that qualify as pastoral work and claimants past work must be performed at the substantial gainful activity level do you have a response to that i do the probably run into with composite job is how much of the time are they spending performing the one aspect of their job versus the other if they're doing both evenly then it's very possible that the one half of the job that they were performing might not equate to substantial gain support finding that she was both performing all the tasks of the receptionist job and doing it enough of the time to amount to substantial meaningful activity i think primarily the work history report where she indicated she was seated seven hours a day if you look at the store labor job that somebody is going out on to the showroom floor now stocking items with pulling items handling works and dice helping people with those kinds of things that's a more active job that's a medium exertional level job where you're doing a lot of sufficient well in this case it's impossible to break down exactly how much time she's going to do each and that's not really the requirement their interests are eighty to sixty one the old you just have to look at the facts and i think the g s rating of the facts in this case was at thank you first i would just note that the l g is not bound by the vocational expert not have to agree with the vocational expert but here they l j specifically found that testimony credible so start eighty two sixty two which talks about to step four findings requires that the way both the medical and non medical facts before making a determination hear the algae indicated that the testimony was credible and never provided any analysis about why he departed from that testimony was not really a credibility question so whether it was a cup was a job it's not that the ve was incredible it's just whether well the j analysis and provided an explanation that we could review now and determine why that l j departed from that be testimony and that would be a different story but here the l g excepted that testimony and then departed it departed from it without providing an explanation for doing so i would also just like to discuss the difference between a generally performed analysis and the composite job analysis and i think that the eleventh circuit case that is actually cited in the defendant helps point out that different in the smith case the claimant was performing the job of the telephone attendant and was also hanging right notices in there the eleventh circuit found that the claimant cannot go back to the job as he did it as generally performed because he was just performing one function at a different exertional level and that telephone job was typically performed in the v that test at that hearing had listened to that testimony and determined that that was not a composite job because there was no other d o t title to describe the hanging right notices this is a completely different case than that that would be a generally performed analysis here she was performing the significant jobs of the store labor as she testified to to the extent that her testimony was inconsistent with her work history report it was up to the a l j to at least provide some sort of an explanation and result that inconsistency in the decision rather than simply providing the conclusion as he did in this case