Opinion ID: 802092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ALJ's Reliance on the Vocational Expert

Text: Next, Renstrom contends the ALJ failed to incorporate all limitations, restrictions, and subjective complaints into the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert. Testimony based on hypothetical questions that do not encompass all relevant impairments cannot constitute substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision. Hypothetical questions should set forth impairments supported by substantial evidence on the record and accepted as true and capture the concrete consequences of those impairments. Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 972 (8th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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. Martise, 641 F.3d at 927 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As noted above, the ALJ properly discounted Renstrom's subjective complaints and allocated more weight to certain medical opinions than others. Accordingly, the hypothetical question to the vocational expert did not need to incorporate the additional limitations the ALJ had properly disregarded. See Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 969 (8th Cir.2010) ([T]he ALJ was not obligated to include limitations from opinions he properly disregarded.). Based on our previous conclusion. . . that the ALJ's findings of [Renstrom's] RFC are supported by substantial evidence, we hold that the hypothetical question was therefore proper, and the [vocational expert's] answer constituted substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's denial of benefits. Martise, 641 F.3d at 927 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).