Gina Britton v. Carolyn W. Colvin
787 F.3d 1011
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2007, Britton applied for Social Security Disability Insurance alleging fibromyalgia, migraines, generalized dystonia, and other impairments.
- The ALJ found Britton could perform light work with additional limitations.
- Limitations included one day off per month, five percent off-task time, no fast-paced settings, no moving machinery or heights, superficial public contact, and limited coworker/supervisor interaction.
- A vocational expert testified Britton could perform phlebotomist, sales clerk, waitress, and sandwich maker jobs.
- The Social Security Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed.
- On appeal, Britton challenged the weight given to medical evidence, nurse-practitioner testimony, and whether migraines should affect the vocational evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed medical evidence | Britton argues Dr. McBarron’s fibromyalgia listing is entitled to more weight | Colvin contends the ALJ reasonably discounted Dr. McBarron | Yes; ALJ properly weighed evidence and could give Dr. McBarron little weight |
| Whether nurse practitioner testimony was properly considered | Britton asserts Keith’s testimony should be given deference | Colvin treats Keith as an 'other source' whose testimony can be discounted with germane reasons | Yes; NP is not an acceptable medical source and discount was germane |
| Whether migraines should be included in the vocational assessment | Britton's migraines should limit vocational options | No substantial evidence to include migraines beyond the record | Yes; substantial evidence did not support including migraines in the VE examination |
| Whether Dr. McBarron’s testimony about migraines supports disability | Britton's migraines render her unable to work | Dr. McBarron relied on Britton’s own assertions; not substantial evidence | No; evidence based on Britton’s credibility insufficient to establish disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (medical opinion may be given less weight if not well supported)
- Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 1996) (nurse practitioners may be considered medically acceptable sources only in narrow circumstances with agency expertise)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (nurse practitioners are 'other sources' whose testimony can be discounted with germane reasons)