herself admitted to getting along with family members.
The ALJ rejected Dr. Klyashtorny's findings of Rotshteyn's limitations
because he attributed Rotshteyn's limitations as much to cultural
adjustment difficulties and the language barrier as he did to her mental
impairment. Id. The ALJ properly discredited Dr. Klyashtorny's opinion
because it contradicted Rotshteyn's treating psychiatrists reports and
because Dr. Klvashtorny failed to cite objective medical findings, other
than acculturation difficulties, as the cause of Rotshteyn's alleged
functional limitations. See Frankenfield, 861 F.2d at 408; Newhouse, 753
F.2d at 286.
Rotshteyn next contends that the ALJ erred in finding that she has the
residual functional capacity to return to substantial gainful activity,
including past relevant work.*fn6 Once a claimant proves she has a
severe impairment that precludes bet' from returning to past relevant
work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that the claimant
can perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national
economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, 416.966. See Rossi, 602 F.2d at 57. The
Commissioner must consider various factors in determining a claimant's
residual functional capacity, including a claimant's age, education, work
experience, physical abilities, mental abilities, and limitations caused
by medically determinable impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (f),
The ALJ determined that, based upon the medical records, Rotshteyn had
no exertional limitations and was capable of heavy work with no postural
limitations.*fn7 The ALJ based this finding on the records of
Rotshteyn's treating physicians as well as the State agency doctors. As
previously discussed, the ALJ's rejection of Dr. Lipson's report and his
reliance upon Rotshteyn's other treating and non-examining physicians
constituted substantial evidence to support a finding that Rotshteyn was
capable of heavy work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.969a.
Moreover, the ALJ found "significant non-exertional impairments"
rendering Rotshteyn unable to "work in jobs requiring the ability to
remember, understand and carry out complex, detailed instructions; and,
tolerate high levels of job stress." (Tr. 21). This court concluded that
the ALJ properly developed the record concerning Rotshteyn's mental
impairment and properly disregarded Dr. Klyashtorny's opinion as to
Rotshteyn's alleged functional limitations. As discussed, the ALJ's
reliance on the records of Rotshteyn's treating psychiatrists at PATH and
the findings of the three psychologists who performed a review of
Rotshteyn's psychological records was appropriate. Hence, substantial
evidence exists to support the ALJ's finding that Rotshteyn's
non-exertional limitations, while severe, were not preclusive of work.
The ALJ also considered other medically determinable impairments
including Rotshteyns alleged pain from headaches and hypertension.
However, as the ALJ noted, there was no evidence of hypertension in her
treating physicians' notes. (Tr. 13, 18). The doctors at PATH noted only
normal or slightly low blood pressure during her period of treatment.
records also indicated normal blood pressure readings. Id. Hence, the
ALJ properly concluded that this impairment did not effect Rotshteyn's
functional capacity. As for Rotshteyn's complaints of pain and headaches,
this Court has determined that it was proper for the ALJ to not fully
credit Rotshteyn's subjective complaints. As such, substantial evidence
exists to support the ALJ's finding that Rotshteyn was capable of
performing heavy work with some non-exertional limitations.
Finally, Rotshteyn contends that the ALJ erred in not relying on the
VE's response to her counsel's hypothetical question. To determine
whether a claimant is capable of performing other substantial gainful
activity that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, the
ALJ may rely upon the testimony of a vocational expert. Testimony of a
vocational expert constitutes substantial evidence for purposes of
judicial review where a hypothetical question considers all of a
claimant's impairments which are supported by the medical record.
Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269, 1276 (3d Cir. 1987). Hypothetical
questions need only include factors that are supported by objective
medical evidence contained in the record. Chrupcala, 829 F.2d at 1271. It
is not necessary for the ALJ to include facts that are supported by a
claimant's subjective testimony only. Id.
The ALJ posed a hypothetical to the VE at the administrative hearing in
I'd like you to consider hypothetically an individual
57 years of age, with training, education, and
experience, as in the present case. Who is generally
unimpaired exertionally but is unable to understand,
remember, or carry out complex and detailed
instructions, or tolerate high stress. Given those
facts and circumstances, is there any work the
hypothetical individual could perform on a sustained
(Tr. 43). The VE responded that such an individual would be capable of
substantial gainful activity as an office cleaner, food preparation
work, production worker, or machine tender, all of which existed in
significant numbers in the local and national economy. Id.
Rotshteyn's attorney then posed the following hypothetical to the VE:
Q: There's an Exhibit number 10 from a doctor that
Social Security sent the claimant out to a Dr. Philip
Lipson and he filled out a — exertional
limitations for the claimant. . . . He says less than
10 pounds occasionally, stand or walk less than two
hours, sit less than six hours, push, pull limited to
upper and lower extremities, and postural limitations
never for all the categories. . . . What level is he
placing the claimant?
A: It would be less than sedentary.