Opinion ID: 218138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hypothetical to VE

Text: Finally, Martise argues that the ALJ provided an improper hypothetical question to the VE because the question did not sufficiently account for limitations arising from her headaches, her severe combination of other impairments, or the limitations that Dr. Berland indicated. Therefore, Martise asserts that the question was not supported by the evidence, and the ALJ should have relied on the VE's answer to the second hypothetical question, which confirmed that Martise could not work. The ALJ's hypothetical question to the vocational expert needs to include only those impairments that the ALJ finds are substantially supported by the record as a whole. Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 889 (8th Cir.2006) (quotation and citation omitted). The ALJ's hypothetical question included all of [Martise's] limitations found to exist by the ALJ and set forth in the ALJ's description of [Martise's] RFC. Id. Based on our previous conclusion, see supra Part II.B., that the ALJ's findings of [Martise's] RFC are supported by substantial evidence, we hold that [t]he hypothetical question was therefore proper, and the VE's answer constituted substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's denial of benefits. Lacroix, 465 F.3d at 889.