Case Name: Ricky DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-28
Citations: 563 F. App'x 501
Docket Number: No. 13-2891
Parties: Ricky DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 501–501

Head Matter:
Ricky DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-2891.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2014.
Filed: April 28, 2014.
Richmond J. Brownson, Richmond J. Brownson, P.C., Timothy M. White, AAA Disability Advocates, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Stacey E. McCord, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Michael McGau-ghran, Gregory Edward White, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ricky Davis appeals from an order of the District Court affirming the denial of supplemental security income. On appeal, Davis's only challenge is to the adequacy of the hypothetical the administrative law judge (ALJ) posed to the vocational expert (VE). We find no merit to this challenge. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir.2013) (standard of review). Specifically, we conclude that the hypothetical set forth those impairments that were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, that were accepted as true, and that captured the concrete consequences of the impairments and thus that the ALJ properly relied on the VE's response to the hypothetical to find Davis not disabled. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir.2012); see also Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917, 922 (8th Cir.2010) (noting that VE's testimony constitutes substantial evidence when it is based on hypothetical that accounts for all of claimant's proven impairments). We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.