Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35626/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GINA L. BRITTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-35626

D.C. No.

2:11-cv-00314-

EFS

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Edward F. Shea, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 4, 2015*

Seattle, Washington

Filed June 2, 2015

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Ronald M. Gould,

and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 Case: 13-35626, 06/02/2015, ID: 9557880, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 1 of 7
2 BRITTON V. COLVIN

SUMMARY**

Social Security

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment affirming

the administrative law judge’s denial of claimant’s

application for disability benefits under the Social Security

Act.

The panel held that the ALJ reasonably weighed the

medical evidence, and there was substantial evidence in the

record to support the ALJ’s determination that claimant was

not eligible for disability benefits. Specifically, the panel

held that the ALJ could have reasonably accorded little

weight to amedical expert’s opinion that claimant’s condition

equaled the listing of fibromyalgia. The panel also held that

the ALJ provided germane reasons for discounting the

testimony of a nurse practitioner. Finally, the panel held that

the ALJ did not err by not including claimant’s migraines in

the examination of the vocational expert because substantial

evidence did not support including the additional limitations

caused by claimant’s migraines in the vocational assessment.

COUNSEL

Dana C. Madsen, Spokane, Washington, for PlaintiffAppellant.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-35626, 06/02/2015, ID: 9557880, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 2 of 7
BRITTON V. COLVIN 3

Catherine Escobar, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the

General Counsel, Social Security Administration, for

Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In 2007, Gina Britton filed for Social Security Disability

Insurance Benefits, citing an assortment of ailments:

fibromyalgia, migraines, generalized dystonia,1and others. 

Because of her impairments, Britton claimed she could not

work, could only drive “very short distances,” experienced

broken sleep, could only walk for five to fifteen minutes,

could only stand for fifteen minutes, could only sit for a few

minutes without adjusting her position, and could only lift

five to ten pounds.

The administrative law judge found otherwise. He found

that Britton could carry up to twenty pounds and could sit,

stand, or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday. Based

on these findings, the administrative law judge determined

that Britton could perform light work with significant

limitations. Those limitations included one-day off per

month for medical reasons, five percent of the work day spent

off-task, no fast-paced settings, no exposure to moving

machinery or heights, only superficial public contact, and

only occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors.

1 General dystonia is a neurological movement disorder in which

sustained muscle contractions cause twisting and repetitive movements or

abnormal postures.

 Case: 13-35626, 06/02/2015, ID: 9557880, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 3 of 7
4 BRITTON V. COLVIN

While the limitations excluded some of Britton’s past

jobs, a vocational expert testified that Britton was still

capable of performing several jobs she had previously held:

phlebotomist,

2

sales clerk, waitress, and sandwich maker.3

Based on the testimony of the vocational expert that Britton

could perform the above jobs, the administrative law judge

denied Britton’s application for disability benefits. The

Social Security Appeals Council denied review, and the

district court affirmed on appeal.

On appeal to this court, Britton argues that the

administrative law judge did not reasonably weigh the

medical evidence because the medical expert, Dr. McBarron,

testified that Britton met the listing for fibromyalgia. 

However, an administrative law judge may disregard medical

opinion that is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported

by clinical findings. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211,

1216 (9th Cir. 2005).

Here, the administrative law judge could have reasonably

accorded little weight to Dr. McBarron’s opinion that

Britton’s condition equals the listing of fibromyalgia. That is

because Dr. McBarron’s opinion could not possibly be right. 

An alleged case of fibromyalgia cannot meet the listing for

fibromyalgia because fibromyalgia is not a listed disability. 

See Social Security Ruling 12-2p at *2. Dr. McBarron even

acknowledged this later in his testimony.

 

2

 A phlebotomist is a person who draws blood.

3 The administrative law judge found Britton capable of only light work.

The Dictionary of Occupational Titles describes sandwich maker as

medium work. However, the vocational expert noted that the sandwich

maker job Britton previously held could be considered light work.

 Case: 13-35626, 06/02/2015, ID: 9557880, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 4 of 7
BRITTON V. COLVIN 5

What Dr. McBarron may have meant was that Britton’s

fibromyalgia was severe enough to be equivalent to one of the

listed disabilities. However, Dr. McBarron’s testimony was

that Britton could perform light work. The ability to perform

light work is incompatible with a listed disability, for a listed

disability conclusively establishes that a claimant cannot

work and, hence, is eligible for disability benefits. See, e.g.,

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Dr. McBarron’s testimony

did not support a finding that Britton’s fibromyalgia—

something Dr. McBarron even expressed doubt about—

rendered her unable to work.

It is true that Michael Keith, a nurse practitioner, opined

that Britton could not work because of her fibromyalgia. 

However, a nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical

source. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.

2012). Rather, nurse practitioners are defined as “other

sources,” the testimony of whom the administrative law judge

may discount if he “gives reasons germane to each witness

for doing so.” Id.

The administrative law judge discounted Keith’s

testimony for a good reason: namely, that Dr. McBarron had

testified that Britton was capable of light work. In according

little weight to Keith’s testimony, the administrative law

judge also pointed to Britton’s daily activities, such as home

schooling her children, which discredited Keith’s opinion.

Britton asserts that Keith’s testimony should be accorded

deference as medical testimonybecause Keith worked closely

under Drs. Wukelic and Wu. This court held in Gomez v.

Chater that a nurse practitioner could be considered a

medically acceptable source where he worked so closely

under a physician that he was acting as the physician’s agent. 

 Case: 13-35626, 06/02/2015, ID: 9557880, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 5 of 7
6 BRITTON V. COLVIN

Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 1996).4

However, nothing in the record indicates that Keith worked

so closely under Drs. Wukelic or Wu as to be considered an

agent of either. The record only shows that Keith, who

worked at Northwest Medical Rehabilitation, received

documents from and forwarded documents to the Rockwood

Clinic, where Drs. Wukelic and Wu worked. In fact, the

documents sent bythe Rockwood Clinic incorrectlyidentified

Keith as a physician, suggesting that the Rockwood doctors

did not know Keith. Given that Keith worked in a different

doctors group and given that he was misaddressed, the record,

if anything, suggests that Keith did not work closely at all

under Drs. Wukelic and Wu. The administrative law judge

did not improperly weigh the testimony of McBarron and

Keith about Britton’s fibromyalgia.

Also, Britton maintains that the administrative law judge

erred by not including her migraine headaches in his

examination of the vocational expert. It is true the

administrative law judge did not expressly account for

Britton’s migraines in any of the hypothetical job seekers he

described to the vocational expert. “It is, however, proper for

an [administrative law judge] to limit a hypothetical to those

impairments that are supported by substantial evidence in the

record.” Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir.

2001).

Here, substantial evidence did not support including

migraines in the examination of the vocational expert. There

 

4 Gomez partially relied on 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(6), which has been

repealed. See 65 Fed. Reg. 34950-01; Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111 n.3. We

express no view on the validity of Gomez. But even applying Gomez,

Keith should not be considered a medically acceptable source here.

 Case: 13-35626, 06/02/2015, ID: 9557880, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 6 of 7
BRITTON V. COLVIN 7

was no independent medical evidence establishing that

Britton suffers from migraines three to four days a month,

that she must rest when she gets them, and that they last for

two to four hours, as she claimed. While Dr. McBarron

testified to this effect, he relied exclusively on Britton’s

testimony regarding the frequency, duration, and intensity of

her migraines. Dr. McBarron’s testimony does not constitute

substantial evidence because it was based on Britton’s

testimony, which the administrative law judge determined

was not credible as to the severity or frequency of her

conditions. The vocational expert did take account of an

absence one day per month. Without substantial evidence to

support including additional limitations caused by Britton’s

migraines in the vocational assessment, it cannot be said the

administrative law judge erred in conducting the examination

of the vocational expert as he did.

There was substantial evidence in the record to support

the administrative law judge’s determination that Britton was

not eligible for disability benefits.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-35626, 06/02/2015, ID: 9557880, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 7 of 7