dating from both before and after Plaintiffs date last insured, in December 201Q; several medical opinions; and transcripts from two hearings that include testimony from Plaintiff, two doctors, and two VEs. “Given this fully developed record, the admission of more evidence would not be ‘enlightening,’ and ‘remand for the purpose of allowing the ALJ’ to have a mulligan [does not qualify] as a remand for a ‘useful pur? pose.’ ” Henderson v. Berryhill, 691 Fed.Appx. 384, 386, 2017 WL 2211273, at *1 (9th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). That is particularly true given that this Court previously found that the ALJ failed to give, legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Dr. Bohan’s opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings. See Benecke, 379 F.3d at 595 (<HOLDING>). Regarding the third and final element, if Dr.
holding that allowing commissioner a second chance to decide the central issue in plaintiffs case  createfs an unfair heads we win tails lets play again system of disability benefits adjudication citation omitted holding that res judicata does not bar litigation of a claim pleaded in an earlier case if the record of the case shows that the court refused to decide the issue holding that disability pension benefits could be offset against both temporary and total permanent disability compensation benefits holding that disability benefits are not retirementtype benefits holding the issue of use can be necessary to the adjudication by the board of adjustment of the underlying request for a variance when the issue is raised in the context of an issue the board of adjustment is required to decide