Lutterbach v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Lutterbach v. Commissioner of Social Security (Lutterbach v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DOLORES ANNA LUTTERBACH, Case No. 20-cv-06835-AGT
8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR 9 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Re: Dkt. No. 25, 28 Defendant. 11
12 Dolores Anna Lutterbach applied for and was denied disability-related benefits under the 13 Social Security Act. Now, on judicial review of the decision denying benefits, Lutterbach argues 14 that the decisionmaker, an ALJ, erred by assigning only limited weight to the opinions of two nurse 15 practitioners, Talia Luc and Alicia Bulin, both of whom supported Lutterbach’s claim of disability. 16 When Lutterbach applied for benefits, in January 2017, “a nurse practitioner [was] not an 17 acceptable medical source,” but was instead defined as an “other source[]” entitled to less deference. 18 Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2015) (simplified). The ALJ could discount 19 testimony from these “other sources” by giving “germane reason[s]” for doing so. Coleman v. Saul, 20 979 F.3d 751, 757 (9th Cir. 2020) (simplified). 21 The ALJ satisfied this standard. He reasoned that NP Luc’s and NP Bulin’s opinions weren’t 22 well supported by the medical evidence in the record. See AR 31–32 (pointing to contrary medical 23 opinions and contrary medical records). When a claimant’s “full medical record casts doubt on the 24 severity of the limitations assessed by” a nurse practitioner, this lack of support is a “germane rea- 25 son” for discounting the NP’s opinion. Coleman, 979 F.3d at 757. 26 The ALJ’s conclusion was also supported by substantial evidence. Lutterbach argues for a 27 different interpretation of the evidence, but the ALJ’s findings were “supported by inferences rea- 1 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 Lutterbach’s motion for summary judgment is denied, the Commissioner’s motion for sum- 3 || mary judgment is granted, and the ALJ’s decision denying benefits is affirmed. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 14, 2022 6 7 ALEX G. TSE 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 a 12
15 16
it
4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lutterbach v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lutterbach-v-commissioner-of-social-security-cand-2022.