### The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Un ited States District 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-2791

___________ Patricia L. Crawford, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * Western District of Missouri. of the Social Security * Administration, * (UNPUBLISHED * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 30, 1996 Filed: April 14, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Pa tricia L. Crawford appeals the judgment of the district court 1 affirming the Commissioner's denial of disabilit y insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). We affirm.
Crawford filed applications for DIB and SSI, alleging disability due to bil ateral forearm and hand pain. Evidence at a hearing before a n administrative law judge (ALJ) revealed Crawford underwent carpal tunnel release. She was running a child-care business in her home on a full-time basis for five young children, ranging in age from eight months to fou r years. The ALJ determined Crawford had the residual functional capacity to perfor m at least light work involving no repetitive use of the uppe r extremities, no

### -2-

vibra tion to the upper extremities, no lifting over ten pounds, and n o tasks requiring fine finger dexterity or sensati on. Based on testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ found there we re a significant number of jobs in the national economy Crawford could perform.

On app eal, Crawford asserts the ALJ erred in finding she coul d performlight work (when she could no longer perform sedentary work), in determ ining she could perform jobs as a security monitor, laundr y attendant, and dressi ng room attendant as those jobs are described in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th Ed. 1991) ( DOT ), and in finding her subjective complaints only partially credible.

We conclu de the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence
on the record as a whole. See Piepgras v. Chater , 76 F.3d 233, 236 (8th Cir
. 1996) (standard of review). The ALJ properly evaluated Crawford' s subjective complaints under Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1 984). Even Crawford's physicians expressed the opinion Crawfor d could d o work that did not involve repetitive hand use. See Edwards v
. Sec retaryof Health & Human Servs. , 809 F.2d 506, 508 (8th Cir. 1987 ) (examining physician's failure to find disability factor in discrediting subjective complaints). While Crawford correctl y asserts that the ability to do minor household chores does not demonstrate the ability to perform substantial gainful activity, see Easter v. Bowen , 867 F.2d 1128, 1130 (8t h Cir. 1989), Crawford is in the business of caring for at least five infant s and toddlers full-tim e, in addition to performing her own housework. The ALJ properly considered Crawford's receipt of unemployment benefits i n assessing her credibility. See Barrett v. Shalala , 38 F.3d 1019, 1024 (8t h Cir. 1994) (unemploym ent recipient must sign documents stating capable of work and seeking work).
The ALJ properly concluded Crawford could perform light work

### -3-

with the enumerated restrictions. While persons who can perform ligh t work can generally perform sedentary work, the C ode of Federal Regulations notes exceptions where "there are additional lim iting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time." 20 C.F.R
. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). The jobs described by the VE are similar to the DOT descriptions of ga te guard (372.667-030), laundry attendant (369.677-010), and sale s attendant (299.677-01 0). While these jobs, as listed in DOT , may require addit ional or different duties than those described by the VE, the DO T descriptions provide the maximum requirements of jobs, not the range; and
as such may not coincide in all respects with jobs as performed i n particular establishments or locales. See Jones v. Chater , 72 F.3d 81, 82 (8t h Cir. 1995). We can assume the VE considered all the impairment s listed by the ALJ in fashioning her response to the hypothetical, se e Whit ehouse v. Sullivan , 949 F.2d 1005, 1006 (8th Cir. 1991), and he r testimony based on that hypothetical, which included the limitations the ALJ fo und credible, constitutes substantial evidence. See Miller v
. Shalala , 8 F.3d 611, 613 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

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