Allen

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Mary Allen sought disability benefits based, inter alia, on anxiety neurosis (depression). She appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment affirming the Social Security Commission *909 er’s (“Commissioner”) denial of benefits. We affirm.

We review the district court’s decision to uphold the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo, Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir.1989); however, we review the Commissioner’s decision for substantial evidence. Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.1997). Under the substantial evidence standard, we must affirm where there is such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate support for a conclusion, even if it is possible to draw contrary conclusions from the evidence. Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2003).

During the proceedings before the Commissioner and on administrative appeal before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Allen offered evidence of disability based on two conditions: (1) a back injury that occurred while she was working as a caregiver; and (2) depression. On appeal, Allen challenges the ALJ’s determination that she “had…