Opinion ID: 222841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Perkins's Hypothetical

Text: Perkins argues that the ALJ erred when he declined to adopt certain portions of the vocational expert's testimony. Specifically, Perkins notes that the ALJ asked the vocational expert whether missing more than two days of work per month would preclude competitive employment. The vocational expert testified in the affirmative. The ALJ then asked the vocational expert whether it would preclude employment for a person to attend work every day, but arrive late or leave early at least once a week. Again, the vocational expert testified that it would. Perkins also notes that her counsel asked the vocational expert whether someone with all of the limitations Perkins described in her testimony could obtain employment. The vocational expert noted that breaks in attention would make it more difficult to be competitive in the job market, and that no employer would tolerate the need for naps at that level, at the unskilled level. Appendix at 71. `A hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert is sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by substantial evidence in the record and accepted as true.' Goff, 421 F.3d at 794 (quoting Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir.2001)). The hypothetical question must capture the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies. Hunt, 250 F.3d at 625. However, the ALJ may exclude any alleged impairments that [he] has properly rejected as untrue or unsubstantiated. Id. As discussed above, the ALJ was not required to adopt Perkins's unsupported subjective complaints and self-imposed limitations. Aside from her own testimony, there is no support in the record upon which to base a finding that Perkins's limitations include napping during the work day. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in declining to include Perkins's self-imposed restrictions in his hypothetical to the vocational expert. Likewise, the ALJ was not required to include other limitations in the hypothetical that he found to be unsupported in the record. Here, the ALJ properly included only those impairments and limitations he found to be supported by the evidence as a whole in his hypothetical to the vocational expert. See Goff, 421 F.3d at 794; see also Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1220 (8th Cir.2001) (The ALJ's hypothetical properly included all impairments that were accepted by the ALJ as true and excluded other alleged impairments that the ALJ had reason to discredit.). As a result, the ALJ's hypothetical to the vocational expert was proper.