*

Jo Anne B. Barnhart has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social

Security and is substituted as appellee under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

43(c)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2224

___________

Sherry Lincoln, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart,*

 Commissioner, *

Social Security Commission, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2001

Filed: November 23, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sherry Lincoln applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income benefits because of diabetes. Lincoln had not worked in her earlier

occupation as a waitress for two years before her application for benefits. According

to medical records, most of the complaints for which Lincoln sought treatment were
**The Honorable Terry I. Adelman, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. §

636(c).

-2-

minor in nature. Lincoln’s diabetes-related complaints included blood sugar

fluctuation, fatigue, tendinitis, and pain. After a hearing, the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) denied benefits. The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ’s determination.

Lincoln then filed for judicial review. The district court remanded the case to the

Commissioner for further proceedings to include consideration of a vocational

expert’s (VE) testimony and lay witnesses testimony about Lincoln’s losses of

consciousness. After another hearing which included VE testimony and specifically

considered all the evidence, the ALJ again denied benefits, finding Lincoln’s

complaints were not credible and she retained the ability to perform sedentary work

available in the national economy. Although Lincoln did not seek benefits because

of a mental disorder, the ALJ also considered evidence that Lincoln has borderline

intellectual functioning, dependent personality disorder, and may have somatoform

disorder. Because Lincoln’s exceptions were not filed in time, the Appeals Council

affirmed without further consideration. Lincoln again filed for judicial review. 

The district court** affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income benefits, finding substantial evidence in

the record as a whole supports the Commissioner’s decision. Lincoln now appeals.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm. See Hunt v.

Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 623-24 (8th Cir. 2001). Despite Lincoln’s contrary

assertions, we conclude the ALJ properly posed hypothetical questions that captured

impairments substantially supported by the record and properly considered the VE’s

opinion on each hypothetical question. See id. at 625. The ALJ also properly

considered the lay witness testimony about Lincoln’s losses of consciousness.

Additionally, we reject Lincoln’s contention that acknowledging Lincoln’s functional

limitations is inconsistent with concluding Lincoln is not disabled. Indeed, the law
-3-

requires the ALJ to recite a claimant’s functional limitations when analyzing the

claimant’s residual functional capacity. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th

Cir. 2000). 

Finding no reversible error, we thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.