DeBerry

MEMORANDUM ***

Margaret DeBerry (“DeBerry”) appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

DeBerry asserts that the ALJ: (1) did not properly apply Social Security Regulation 83-20; (2) erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Ruth Lowengart; (3) failed to give specific clear and convincing reasons for finding that DeBerry’s testimony was not credible; (4) failed to account for the corroborating testimony of DeBerry’s husband; and (5) based his decision on an incomplete hypothetical question asked of the vocational expert. We find no prejudicial error and affirm.

1. SSR8S-

The ALJ determined that DeBerry was not disabled prior to June 30, 1992, the last date she was insured. If the ALJ had found that DeBerry was disabled and that the medical evidence was not definite as to the onset date, SSR 83-20 would have required that the ALJ enlist a medical expert to assist in drawing inferences from the record to determine a remote date of onset. Armstrong v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 160 F.3d 587, 590 (9th Cir.1998); DeLorme v. Sullivan,…