Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00535/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00535-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 

Jennifer Mohr, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Martin O'Malley,1

Defendant. 

No. CV-23-00535-TUC-SHR (LCK) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

 Plaintiff Jennifer Mohr filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking 

judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. 1.) Before 

the Court are Plaintiff's Opening Brief, Defendant's Responsive Brief, and Plaintiff's Reply. 

(Docs. 22, 24, 25.) Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of the Court, this matter was referred 

to Magistrate Judge Kimmins for Report and Recommendation. Based on the pleadings 

and administrative record, the Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its 

independent review, affirm the Commissioner's decision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 Plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) in January 

2022, alleging disability from June 20, 2019. (Administrative Record (AR) 289.) She had 

past work as a tour director, sales associate, and in human resources. (AR 391, 408.) She 

was born in March 1968, making her 51 years of age at the alleged onset date of her 

1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the Court automatically substituted Martin O’Malley as Defendant, because he was sworn in as Commissioner of 

the Social Security Administration in December 2023. 

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SHR Document 26 Filed 11/01/24 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

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 

disability. (AR 289.) Plaintiff's application was denied upon initial review (AR 97-109) 

and on reconsideration (AR 110-22). A telephonic hearing was held on March 10, 2021 

(AR 77-96), after which the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled at Step Four. (AR 126-36.) 

The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded the matter to the ALJ for a 

new hearing and decision. (AR 144-48.) 

The ALJ held a second telephonic hearing on July 27, 2022 (AR 43-76), after which 

she found Plaintiff was not disabled (AR 17-32). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had severe 

impairments of chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc 

disease, peripheral artery disease, venous insufficiency, malabsorption, and obesity. (AR 

21.) The ALJ concluded Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform 

sedentary work subject to the following limitations: sit 6 hours and stand or walk for 2 

hours out of an 8-hour work day; "use of a single point cane while ambulating when she 

experiences lower extremity swelling"; frequently lift and carry 10 pounds; occasionally 

climb, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and be exposed to moving machinery and unprotected 

heights. (AR 23.) The ALJ concluded at Step Four, based on the testimony of a vocational 

expert (VE), that Plaintiff could perform her past work as a personnel clerk "as generally 

performed in the national economy at a sedentary level, but not as she performed it." (AR 

31.) The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision. (AR 2.) 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential process to evaluate DIB claims. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-462 (1983). To 

establish disability the claimant bears the burden of showing she (1) is not working; (2) has 

a severe physical or mental impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals the 

requirements of a listed impairment; and (4) claimant's RFC precludes her from performing 

her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). At Step Five, the burden shifts to the 

Commissioner to show that the claimant has the RFC to perform other work that exists in 

substantial numbers in the national economy. Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th 

Cir. 2007). If the Commissioner conclusively finds the claimant "disabled" or "not 

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SHR Document 26 Filed 11/01/24 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

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 

disabled" at any point in the five-step process, he does not proceed to the next step. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). 

 "The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical 

testimony, and for resolving ambiguities." Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th 

Cir. 1995) (citing Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989)). The findings 

of the Commissioner are meant to be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla but less than a 

preponderance." Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Matney v. 

Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 1992)). The court may overturn the decision to 

deny benefits only "when the ALJ's findings are based on legal error or are not supported 

by substantial evidence in the record as a whole." Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 

1035 (9th Cir. 2001). This is so because the ALJ "and not the reviewing court must resolve 

conflicts in the evidence, and if the evidence can support either outcome, the court may not 

substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ." Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019 (quoting Richardson 

v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 400 (1971)); Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 

1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 2004). The Commissioner's decision, however, "cannot be affirmed 

simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence." Sousa v. Callahan, 143 

F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 

1989)). Reviewing courts must consider the evidence that supports as well as detracts from 

the Commissioner's conclusion. Day v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1975). 

DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff brought one claim in which she argues the ALJ failed to make required 

findings about her past relevant work. And the ALJ's finding that she could perform her 

past relevant work was not supported by substantial evidence.2

 It appears Plaintiff is 

making two arguments, which the Court addresses in turn. 

2

 Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to make findings required by SSR 82-62 and that the ALJ’s findings conflicted with this SSR. (Doc. 22 at 5; Doc. 25 at 1-2.) However, she failed to identify how the ALJ’s decision violated this SSR, and it is not evident to the 

Court from a review of the ALJ’s decision and the SSR. Because Plaintiff did not explain 

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SHR Document 26 Filed 11/01/24 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

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 

First, Plaintiff argues the ALJ's Step Four finding relied upon the VE's 

misclassification of Plaintiff's past HR work as sedentary. Plaintiff contends this finding 

was based on how she performed her past work with accommodation of a scooter, but the 

VE failed to evaluate the exertional level of her past work without accommodation. 

Plaintiff's argument does not accurately reflect the ALJ's findings. The VE, and in turn the 

ALJ, found that Plaintiff's past HR work was medium exertion as performed by Plaintiff 

but sedentary as generally performed in the national economy (AR 31, 71). See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1560(b)(2) ("A vocational expert or specialist may offer relevant evidence within his 

or her expertise or knowledge concerning the physical and mental demands of a claimant's 

past relevant work, either as the claimant actually performed it or as generally performed 

in the national economy."). Although the VE mentioned Plaintiff's testimony that she sat 

for seven hours a day, she did not classify Plaintiff's past work, as actually performed, as 

sedentary. (AR 71.) More importantly, the ALJ did not find that Plaintiff could perform 

her past work as previously performed at the medium exertional level. 

Instead, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform her past HR work (classified by the 

VE as personnel clerk) only as performed nationally at the sedentary level. A finding about 

how a job is performed nationally is based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) 

and VE testimony, it is not impacted by how a job was performed by a particular claimant. 

An ALJ may rely upon the DOT to define a job as usually performed in the national 

economy, with the understanding that "some individual jobs may require somewhat more 

or less exertion than the DOT description." SSR 82-61.3

 Further, 

A former job performed by the claimant may have involved functional 

demands and job duties significantly in excess of those generally required for the job by other employers throughout the national economy. Under this test, if the claimant cannot perform the excessive functional demands and/or job 

how the ALJ’s decision violated SSR 82-62, the Court does not evaluate this argument further. 

SSR 82-62 was rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-2p, effective June 22, 2024. 

However, because it was in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision, the Court reviewed 

SSR 82-62 for purposes of evaluating Plaintiff’s argument. 

3

 SSR 82-61 was rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-2p, effective June 22, 2024. 

However, because it was in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision, the Court relied upon SSR 82-61 in evaluating Plaintiff’s claim. 

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SHR Document 26 Filed 11/01/24 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

duties actually required in the former job but can perform the functional demands and job duties as generally required by employers throughout the economy, the claimant should be found to be "not disabled." 

Id. This SSR speaks directly to the findings in Plaintiff's case. Her past work, as performed 

without accommodation, was at a medium exertional level, which was beyond her RFC. 

However, the VE testified that Plaintiff's position as typically performed for other 

employers was sedentary and she could perform it based on the RFC found by the ALJ. 

 Second, Plaintiff argues her past work does not come within the (DOT) category of 

personnel clerk as found by the ALJ. She contends that her past position was a training 

coordinator, which is not sedentary because it required that she perform demonstrations, 

stand, and walk. In determining whether a claimant's past work is equivalent to a DOT 

occupation, a VE considers the major tasks and the industry of the job. Program 

Occupational Manual Systems (POMS) DI 25005.025.4

 The DOT states that a personnel 

clerk (No. 209.362-026)5

 performs the following tasks: 

Compiles and maintains personnel records: Records employee information, such as personal data; compensation, benefits, and tax data; attendance; 

performance reviews or evaluations; and termination date and reason. 

Processes employment applications and assists in other employment 

activities. Updates employee files to document personnel actions and to provide information for payroll and other uses. Examines employee files to answer inquiries and provides information to authorized persons. Compiles data from personnel records and prepares reports using typewriter or 

computer. 

Plaintiff provided information that she worked as a training coordinator in the 

Human Resources department of Walmart from May 2013 to June 2019. (AR 48, 391, 408, 

531.) She submitted a February 11, 2020, letter, which indicated her tasks included 

"interacting with associates and management, answering phone calls and emails, setting up 

interviews, conducting new employee orientation and explanation of benefits, filing, and 

record keeping." (AR 398.) At the first hearing, Plaintiff testified that her work in HR 

involved, "getting people into our interviews, make sure people continued their training, I 

4

 This POMS provision is available online here: https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0425005025 

5

 The DOT description of a personnel clerk is available online here: 

https://occupationalinfo.org/20/209362026.html. 

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SHR Document 26 Filed 11/01/24 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

was also the one who did the orientations on new associates, went over benefits, and also 

had to partake in any type of celebrations on all three shifts to – for associates." (AR 82.) 

On a resume, she described her HR job as involving: 

Conducted new associate orientation and training. Ensure associates know policy and procedures of Walmart. Used my medical insurance background to explain how the various insurance plans worked. Worked on 

unemployment cases, various HR reports including FT/PT report, 

Attendance reports. At times have worked solo in office as both the PC & 

TC. Assist associates day to day with training, questions, and issues that may require other resources to resolve personnel or professional. Organized and facilitated holiday events, CMN fundraising, and store celebrations. 

(AR 524.) 

 Plaintiff's prior job was in the HR department as is the position of personnel clerk. 

The payroll clerk position has several primary components, each of which are reflected in 

Plaintiff's job description with comparable or overlapping tasks: 

1. A personnel clerk creates and maintains records and prepares reports; 

Plaintiff testified that she performed record keeping and created reports. 

2. A personnel clerk processes employment applications; Plaintiff stated that 

she set up interviews, conducted orientations, and explained policies and benefits to 

new employees. 

3. A personnel clerk is responsible for updating employee files; Plaintiff 

stated that her job included filing. 

4. A payroll clerk answers inquiries from authorized persons based on 

employee files; Plaintiff answered phone calls and emails and interacted with 

associates and management. 

Additionally, the job of personnel clerk includes "assist[ing] in other employment 

activities." DOT 209.362-026. This category readily encompasses the other tasks Plaintiff 

performed such as training and coordinating holiday celebrations. 

A close review of the evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff learned and adequately 

performed the major tasks of a personnel clerk for a period of years. See SSR 82-62 ("'work 

experience' means skills and abilities acquired through work previously performed by the 

individual which indicates the type of work the individual may be expected to perform."). 

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SHR Document 26 Filed 11/01/24 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

That fact that Plaintiff also conducted training in her past job does not undermine her 

experience in performing the tasks required of a personnel clerk as defined in the DOT. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ erred in finding that she had past relevant work 

as a personnel clerk. Nor has Plaintiff established that the ALJ committed legal error at 

Step Four or that the ALJ's Step Four decision is not supported by substantial evidence. 

RECOMMENDATION 

A federal court may affirm, modify, reverse, or remand a social security case. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court concludes the ALJ did not err as to her evaluation at Step Four, 

the only claim raised by Plaintiff. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the 

District Court deny Plaintiff's appeal. 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file 

written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation. A party may respond to the other party's objections within fourteen days. 

No reply brief shall be filed on objections unless leave is granted by the district court. If 

objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the 

parties should use the following case number: CV-23-00535-TUC-SHR. 

 Dated this 1st day of November, 2024. 

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SHR Document 26 Filed 11/01/24 Page 7 of 7