Harris

I. BACKGROUND

18 This action challenges the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision to deny 19 plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff’s case came for hearing before an 20 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on November 8, 2022, on remand from the Appeals 21 Council following remand (by stipulation of the parties) from the United States District 22 Court for the Southern District of California. AR 1381.1 After reviewing the documentary 23 evidence in the record and hearing new testimony, the ALJ ultimately concluded plaintiff 24 was not disabled prior to her date last insured (“DLI”) of September 30, 2016. AR 1392. 25

27 The Court adopts the parties’ citations to the certified record in this matter. All other 28 The ALJ also concluded plaintiff was not disabled between her DLI and February 9, 2019, but plaintiff became disabled by operation of Medical-Vocational Rule 202.06 on February 9, 2019. Id. The ALJ’s decision followed the five steps prescribed by applicable regulations under which the ALJ must sequentially determine (1) if the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful employment; (2) whether the …