Kelly Young v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Kelly L. Young appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of her application for social security disability benefits. We affirm.

1. The Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) characterization of Young’s daily activities was supported by substantial evidence. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir.2005). Young’s own testimony and medical records support the' ALJ’s finding that she could “attend to self-care, drive a car, go grocery shopping, organize her household, use a computer, and manage her finances.” To the extent that Young challenges the ALJ’s rejection of her testimony regarding her level of impairments, Young has waived this claim by not raising it in the district court. See Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam).

2. The ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for discounting Dr. Havellana’s and Dr. 'Barto’s medical opinions. The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Havellana’s opinion because it was contradicted by objective scores on psychological tests that she administered. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that a “discrepancy” between a doctor’s observations and conclusion “is…