Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00444/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00444-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JOHN MAWHINNEY,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-444-TUC-CKJ 

ORDER

On July 30, 2007, Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin issued a Report and

Recommendation [Doc. # 13] in which she recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment [Doc. # 8] be denied and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

[Doc. # 9] be granted. On August 7, 2007, Plaintiff John Mawhinney ("Mawhinney") filed

Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Murphy requests the Court to reverse the

Commissioner’s decision and award benefits. Alternatively, Mawhinney requests this Court

to remand this matter for further proceedings. A response to the objections has not been

filed.

Decision of the Administrative Law Judge

Mawhinney has filed an application for social security benefits. Formerly a pilot and

a state senator, Mawhinney asserts that he has suffered from a disability due to vertigo since

Case 4:06-cv-00444-CKJ Document 15 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

March 26, 1996. 

The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that Mawhinney had not engaged in

any substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date, Mawhinney had severe

impairments, and Mawhinney’s impairments did not meet or equal the criteria for any

impairment found in the Listing of Impairments. The ALJ determined that Mawhinney had

a full range of exertional activity except as limited by minor episodes of vertigo on an

irregular basis and a need to avoid exposure to operating machinery without a great deal of

care. A vocational expert testified before the ALJ that Mawhinney could perform his past

relevant work as a state senator given his residual functional capacity. The ALJ relied on the

testimony of the vocational expert in concluding that, in the alternative, Mawhinney could

make a vocational adjustment to other kinds of work, such as telephone solicitor or

dispatcher. The ALJ concluded that, independent of Mawhinney’s ability to work as a state

senator, Mawhinney was not disabled – Mawhinney is capable of making a successful

adjustment to work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ

concluded that Mawhinney was not entitled to a period of disability or disability insurance

benefits.

Standard of Review

The findings of the Commissioner are meant to be conclusive, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g),

1383(c)(3), and a decision to overturn a denial of benefits is appropriate only if the denial “is

not supported by substantial evidence or [if the denial] is based on legal error.” Matney v.

Sullivan, 981 F2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992), citations omitted; Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d

1149 (9th Cir. 2007). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th

Cir. 2007). The standard is less than a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Matney,

981 F.2d at 1019. Further, a denial of benefits is to be set aside if the Commissioner has

failed to apply the proper legal standards in weighing the evidence even though the findings

Case 4:06-cv-00444-CKJ Document 15 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

may be supported by substantial evidence. Frost v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 359, 367 (9th Cir.

2002).

Past Relevant Work

Mawhinney asserts that the ALJ erred in determining that his position as a state

senator qualified as past relevant work. Mawhinney’s past work is relevant if it was done

within the last 15 years, lasted long enough for Mawhinney to learn how to do it, and was

substantial gainful activity. “Substantial gainful activity means work that – (a) Involves

doing significant and productive physical or mental duties; and (b) Is done (or intended) for

pay or profit.” 20 C.F.R.§ 416.910. 

Mawhinney asserts that where there is no intent to engage in the substantial activity

for pay or profit, the employment cannot be gainful. However, the regulation states:

Gainful work activity is work activity that you do for pay or profit. Work activity is

gainful if it is the kind of work usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit

is realized.

20 C.F.R. § 416.975(b). Mawhinney asserts that he acted as a state senator out of altruism

and a desire to serve the community. Indeed, Mawhinney asserts that the Commissioner

would not have included a subjective element in the regulation if it was not intended.

However, the regulation must be read in context. See Student Loan Fund of Idaho, Inc. v.

U.S. Dept. of Education, 272 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001). Mawhinney’s subjective intent,

therefore, is not the focus of the inquiry. The regulation clearly states that activity is gainful

if it is usually done for profit. Indeed, a claimant may be engaging in substantial gainful

activity without earning any income. See Dotson v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 1993);

Callaghan v. Shalala, 992 F.2d 692 (7th Cir. 1993). “That [Mawhinney did not] intend to

realize a profit is immaterial because he [performed] activities that are normally done for

profit.” Keyes v. Sullivan, 984 F.2d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir. 1990)

Mawhinney further asserts that holding an elected office is not employment.

However, the C.F.R. relied upon by Mawhinney specifically recognizes that a public office

Case 4:06-cv-00444-CKJ Document 15 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

holder is considered an employee of the political subdivision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1073(a).

Mawhinney claims that every elected official is performing service to the community for a

stipend at the whim of the electorate. Mawhinney’s assertion is specious. Mawhinney

received income from the State of Arizona for over ten years. Other elected officials may

spend their entire career in one elected position – e.g., should a person who was repeatedly

elected as a judge or sheriff for forty years never be considered as having been employed,

never having received income, and never having engaged in gainful activity? The Court

finds that the ALJ did not err in concluding that Mawhinney’s service as a state senator

qualifies as past relevant work.

Capability of Performing Past Relevant Work

Mawhinney also asserts that he cannot perform his past relevant work because he

cannot perform the rigors of campaigning. However, the ALJ’s analysis is not based on a

determination that Mawhinney will (or could) return to a particular job. Whether

Mawhinney could get that particular job, i.e., engage in the substantial gainful work, is not

relevant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566; 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2). Rather, the inquiry is whether

Mawhinney is capable of doing work of a type that he knows how to do. Mawhinney asserts,

however, that the need to campaign is part and parcel of service in an elected office.

However, in a different context, it has been recognized that holding an office and

campaigning for that office are two separate jobs. See Diggs v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, 76 T.C. 888 (1982), reversed in part on other grounds, citing McDonald v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 323 U.S. 57, 60, 65 S.Ct. 96, 89 L.Ed.2d 68 (1944).

Moreover, because there is no guarantee that a campaign for public office will be successful,

it cannot be said that the campaigning is part of the job. 

Mawhinney urges the Court, however, to accept the reasoning in the Report and

Recommendation issued in the prior related case, and its determination that service as a state

senator could not constitute past relevant work under these facts on remand. However, as

Case 4:06-cv-00444-CKJ Document 15 Filed 09/13/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

outlined by the Magistrate Judge, the prior hearing did not involve testimony from a

vocational expert about Mawhinney’s prior employment as a state senator. Report and

Recommendation, p. 2, ll. 20-28. This Court cannot say that the Commissioner failed to

apply the proper legal standards. Frost v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d at 367. The analysis in a prior

proceeding does not warrant a finding of legal error.

Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 13] is ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 8] is DENIED;

3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 9] is GRANTED;

4. The decision of the ALJ is AFFIRMED; 

5. Judgment is awarded in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, and;

6. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in this case and shall then close

its file in this matter.

DATED this 12th day of September, 2007.

Case 4:06-cv-00444-CKJ Document 15 Filed 09/13/07 Page 5 of 5