The Honorable Pasco M. Bowman succeeded the Honorable Richard S. 1 Arnold as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for th e Eighth Circuit at the close of business on April 17, 1998.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2905

___________ Thomas L. Pertuis, Jr., * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Kenneth S. Apfel, Social * Western District of Arkansas Security Administration * Commissioner, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 16, 1998 Filed: August 20, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and McMILLIAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 1

___________ McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 2 Western District of Arkansas. -2- Thomas L. Pertuis, Jr. (claimant) appeals from a final order entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granting summary judgment 2 in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security and affirming the decision of th e admi nistrative law judge (ALJ) denying claimant social security disability insuranc e benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(I), 423 and supplemental security incom e benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1 381a. Pertuis v. Callahan , No. 96-6118 (W.D. Ark. June 11, 1997) . For reversal, claimant argues that the district court erred in holding that substantial evidence in the administrat ive record supports the ALJ’s determination th athe was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during th e relevant time period.
Ju risdiction in the district court was proper based upon 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

. Jurisdiction in this court is proper b ased upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal

. Upon review of the record, we find no merit to claimant’s ar gument that the ALJ posed an improper hy pothetical question to the vocational expert (VE) because the question failed to take into account all of c laimant’s debilitating conditions. The ALJ based his hypothe tical question upon those limitations which he found to be credible an d supported by the evidence. The limitations which the ALJ included in his hypothetical question were proper and supported by the eviden ce. See, e.g. , Rappoport v. Sullivan , 942 F.2d 1320, 1323 (8th Cir. 1991) (while hypothetical question must accurately set forth all of the claimant’s impairments, the questio n need only include those limitations accepted by the ALJ as true). Moreover, sub stantial evidence in the record as a whole su pports the ALJ’s conclusion, based upon the VE’s testimony, that there were job s-3-

in significant numbers in the national economy which claimant could perform durin g the relevant time period. See, e.g. , Cruze v. Chater , 85 F.3d 1320, 1326 (8th Cir.-4-

1996) (h olding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision where th e vocational expert testified, in response to a proper hypothetical question, that th e claimant wo uld be able to perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy). Accordingly, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the ALJ’s conc lusion that claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the relevant time period.
The order of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.