Opinion ID: 795395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vocational Expert Hypothetical

Text: 23 As presented in her brief, Hacker's argument respecting the hypothetical posed to the VE is entirely derivative of her arguments regarding the ALJ's consideration of the treating physicians' opinions. Specifically, Hacker argues, [t]he ultimate result of the ALJ's improper discounting of Hacker's treating sources' opinions was an improper hypothetical question [because t]he . . . question . . . did not accurately reflect the limitations imposed by Hacker's impairments. Hacker reasons that the hypothetical question did not include the limitations that both Moll and Mittal felt lessened Hacker's ability to work. As we have previously determined that the ALJ's determinations concerning Hacker's abilities were not outside the zone of choice, we cannot conclude that the hypothetical question was flawed for the reasons alleged by Hacker.