Pamela Back v. Carolyn Colvin
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Pamela Back appeals the denial of social security disability benefits. We review the district court’s decision de novo, Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009), applying the “highly deferential” substantial evidence standard to the ALJ’s determination that Back is not disabled, id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), and affirm.
1. The ALJ’s adverse credibility determination against Back is supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ gave “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for its finding. Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 670-71 (9th Cir. 2012). Back claimed to be in constant, debilitating pain that rendered her bedridden “at least four days” a week. But, substantial evidence in the record showed that Back went to Yoga “every Thursday,” began going to church and joined the choir, walked her dogs, did yard work, did laundry, cared for her kids, went “beachcombing” for two hours, volunteered for Habitat for Humanity, assaulted a woman, completed 134 hours of community service for the assault, and took a 12-week self defense class. She also sought out employment in housekeeping or companionship services, and some record evidence…