They come into play when an ALJ must determine whether a claimant who is receiving disability benefits has terminated his entitlement to those benefits by engaging in work. See A.S. v. Saul, No. 20-CV-00281-JCS, 2021 WL 1087473, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021) (“Before the Commissioner determines that an individual is no longer disabled because he or she is engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner first considers whether the individual is entitled to a trial work period” or to a reentitlement period.)

In other words, “a failure to seek treatment or take prescribed medication may often be indicative of a more severe mental impairment.” A.S. v. Saul, No. 20-cv-00281-JCS, 2021 WL 1087473, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021) (citing Nguyen, 100 F.3d at 1465). The Social Security Administration's own rulings reflect that “mental impairments that affect judgment, reality testing, or orientation” may limit understanding of appropriate treatment.

Because the ALJ's DAA determination was based on those assessments, remand for further proceedings is also appropriate for consideration of whether Plaintiff's disabling limitations would remain if substance abuse was not a factor. See, e.g., A.S. v. Saul, 2021 WL 1087473, at *21 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021) (remand for consideration of whether medical evidence of record supports ALJ's DAA materiality analysis); Brown v. Saul, 2020 WL 1433175, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (same). On remand, the ALJ shall first reweigh the medical evidence and then reassess whether Plaintiff's DAA was a material factor to his disability.