Opinion ID: 749825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impairments Accepted By ALJ

Text: 13 Finally, Brachtel argues that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the hypothetical failed to set forth impairments that even the ALJ himself accepted as existing. On the Psychiatric Review Technique Form filled out by the ALJ and attached to his decision, the ALJ indicated that Brachtel would Often manifest Deficiencies of Concentration, Persistence or Pace Resulting in Failure to Complete Tasks in a Timely Manner. 4 Admin. Tr. at 488. Brachtel contends that the hypothetical did not take into account these impairments. 14 To constitute substantial evidence, a hypothetical must set forth the impairments accepted as true by the ALJ. See Roberts v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 110, 112 (8th Cir.1985). In a case similar to the one at hand, this Court ruled that when an ALJ states that a claimant has impairments of concentration, persistence, or pace, the hypothetical must include those impairments. See Newton v. Chater, 92 F.3d 688, 695 (8th Cir.1996). In Newton, the ALJ stated on the Psychiatric Review Technique Form that the claimant often had deficiencies of concentration, persistence, or pace, but the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert merely limited the claimant's capabilities to simple jobs. See id. The hypothetical did not specifically include impairments regarding concentration, persistence, or pace. We held that the reference to simple jobs in the hypothetical was not enough to constitute inclusion of such impairments. See id. This Court remanded with instructions to include the impairments of concentration, persistence, or pace in the hypothetical. 15 As a preliminary matter, it is significant to note that the ALJ did not necessarily attribute all three impairments--deficient concentration, persistence, and pace--to Brachtel. The classification is written in the disjunctive: Deficiencies of Concentration, Persistence or Pace. Admin. Tr. at 488 (emphasis added). This language suggests that when an ALJ puts a check mark in this block, he is not necessarily making a finding that the claimant has all three of these impairments. In fact, in this case the ALJ wrote in his report that various examinations indicate that the claimant demonstrates few concentration deficits and has a very good memory. Id. at 465 (ALJ Decision Upon Remand). The fact that the ALJ checked the often box for the concentration, persistence or pace category, yet acknowledged examination reports that did not regard Brachtel as being deficient in concentration, indicates that the ALJ read the classification in the disjunctive; the ALJ did not necessarily attribute all three impairments to Brachtel. 16 The hypothetical upon which the ALJ relied 5 included the ability to do only simple routine repetitive work, which does not require close attention to detail. Id. at 598 (Tr. of Hr'g On Remand). Also, the ALJ included the impairment that [Brachtel] should not work at more than a regular pace. Id. While this is scantly more than what was included in the Newton hypothetical, it is enough. In addition to the ability to do only simple work, the ALJ's hypothetical specifically limited concentration (work which does not require close attention to detail) and pace (should not work at more than a regular pace). These specific limitations are supported by the record, and their inclusion in the hypothetical is enough to distinguish this case from Newton.