Opinion ID: 1447761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ALJ's Hypothetical Questions for the Vocational Expert

Text: Simila also challenges the ALJ's conclusion at step five of the sequential analysis that there were a significant number of jobs that he could perform. At step five, the ALJ evaluates the claimant's RFC along with his age, education, and work experience, to determine whether the claimant can make an adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). To make this finding, ALJs often rely on the testimony of a vocational expert (VE). Commonly, the ALJ will pose a series of hypothetical questions that describe the claimant's conditions and limitations, and the VE will testify to the number of jobs that the claimant can perform based on those limitations. This is what the ALJ and VE did here. But Simila argues that the VE's conclusions were faulty because the ALJ's hypothetical questions were incomplete. Ordinarily, an ALJ's hypothetical questions to a VE must include all limitations supported by medical evidence in the record. Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir.2002). Simila contends that the ALJ omitted several limitations that were supported by medical evidence. Most salient to our analysis here, Simila argues, is the ALJ's finding that Simila had moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace. In addition, Simila argues that the ALJ should have included the allegations that Simila could stand or sit for only a short time, that he often needed to lie down and would miss work frequently, and that he in fact had marked difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace. We disagree with Simila regarding the latter set of limitations, because the ALJ is required only to incorporate into his hypotheticals those impairments and limitations that he accepts as credible. Schmidt, 496 F.3d at 846. The ALJ made clear that she did not find Simila's symptoms to be as acute as either Dr. Caillier's letter suggested or Simila testified. She specifically disagreed with Dr. Caillier's assessment that Simila had marked restrictions of concentration, persistence, and pace, and she found that Simila was able to stand for up to six hours and sit up to two. Because we found that the ALJ was justified in discounting Dr. Caillier's conclusions and Simila's credibility, we also find that she was not required to include these limitations in her hypotheticals. The omission of the first set of limitationsSimila's moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and paceis more troubling. The ALJ found these limitations to be credible, and under the ordinary rule, they would have to be included. An exception to this rule comes into play when the record indicates that the VE independently learned of the limitations (through other questioning at the hearing or outside review of the medical records, for example) and presumably accounted for them. Steele, 290 F.3d at 942. However, the exception does not apply if the record indicates that the VE's testimony was confined to the limitations set forth in the ALJ's hypothetical question. Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1003 (7th Cir.2004). Here, the hearing transcript indicates that the VE reviewed the record prior to testifying, and at oral argument, Simila's attorney conceded that the VE was present throughout the hearing and thus heard Simila's testimony. But the record does not indicate that the VE based his conclusions on anything other than the ALJ's hypotheticals. Like the ALJ in Young, the ALJ here posed a series of hypothetical questions with increasingly debilitating limitations and laid out specifically the facts upon which the VE was to base his conclusions. See Young, 362 F.3d at 1003. The VE then prefaced his first comments with, Given the elements of the hypothetical... In none of his responses did the VE rely on or even mention his review of the record or Simila's testimony. Instead, he focused his testimony on the ALJ's hypotheticals, and accordingly, we cannot assume that the VE based his testimony on anything but those hypotheticals. Our review is thus confined to the questions the ALJ posed and whether those questions incorporated Simila's moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace. We find that the ALJ adequately accounted for Simila's impairments. In her first hypothetical, the ALJ described all of Simila's credible impairments, physical and mental, including Simila's chronic pain and somatoform. She then stated that because of the allegations of pain, I would also further limit it to unskilled, as well as limiting the second hypothetical to sedentary level work. We have held that claimants who often experience[] deficiencies of concentration, persistence, or pace are capable of performing semiskilled work, Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209, 213 (7th Cir.2003), and those who are mildly to moderately limited in these areas, are able to perform simple and repetitive light work, Sims v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 424, 431 (7th Cir.2002). Simila's moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace stemmed from his chronic pain syndrome and somatoform disorder, which the ALJ included in the hypothetical. These impairments are rooted in Simila's allegations of pain. Consequently, by limiting the hypothetical to unskilled work, the ALJ incorporated all of Simila's credible limitations.