1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 12 13 STEPHANIE D. H., NO. CV 22-7532-WLH (AGR) 14 Plaintiff,

ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED

15 v. FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF

16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner JUDGE 17 of Social Security, 18 Defendant. 19 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, 21 records on file, the Amended Report and Recommendation of the United States 22 Magistrate Judge and the objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo 23 review of those portions of the Amended Report and Recommendation to which 24 objections have been made.1 The Court accepts the findings and recommendation 25 of the Magistrate Judge. 26 1 Petitioner submits only a partial objection, contending that it was error to 27 conclude “[Petitioner] was not disabled during the earlier period of disability alleged, between October 4, 2009[,] and June 13, 2011.” (Objections, Docket No. 28 (continued…) 1 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the 2 | Commissioner remanding the matter for consideration based on a limitation to 3 || sedentary work for the period beginning June 14, 2011. 4 5 es DATED: 7/30/2025 ba Mf 6 HON. WESLEY L. HSU 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | 24 at 2). Petitioner argues that the Agency's final decision cannot be upheld based on post-hoc arguments by counsel for the Commissioner.” OP) ections, Docket No. 24 | 24 at 3). No post-hoc argument has occurred. Rather, the Court, which is required to review the record as a whole, including treatment notes from the years of 2009- 25 | 11, must determine whether “substantial evidence” — meaning “more than a mere scintilla,” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) — supports the ALJ’s__. 26 | findings. The Court, after reviewing the record as a whole, concludes that, while substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Petitioner was not disabled 27 | from October 4, 2009, t rough June 13, 2011, that there was not substantial rg evidence to support this finding with respect to the time period beginning on June