" Id. at p. 15. Plaintiff submits an IQ of 77 is " 'severe' as a matter of law." Id. (citing Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625-26 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted); also referencing Nicola v. Astrue, 480 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2007)). "The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition is used 'to assess cognitive ability for adults.

The hypothetical question must capture the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies." Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). "When a hypothetical question does not encompass all relevant impairments, the vocational expert's testimony does not constitute substantial evidence.

(R&R, Dkt. #10 at 24.) For support the magistrate judge cites Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2001), as well as Grissom v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2005), which in turn stands on Lucy v. Chater, 113 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 1997), and Pickney v. Chater, 96 F.3d 294 (8th Cir. 1996). Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2010), distinguishes Lucy and Pickney by observing that "the ALJ in Hulsey's . . . administrative hearing posed a hypothetical that limited Hulsey to 'work of an unskilled nature involving only superficial interpersonal contact.'"

substantial evidence in the record and accepted as true.’ ” Goff, 421 F.3d at 794 (quoting Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir.2001)). “The hypothetical question must capture the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies.”

“The hypothetical question must capture the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies.” Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2001); see also Scott v. Berryhill, 855 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2017) (“In order to constitute substantial evidence, a vocational expert's testimony must be based on a hypothetical that captures the ‘concrete consequences' of the claimant's deficiencies.

“The hypothetical question must capture the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies.” Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2001).

“The hypothetical question must capture the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies.” Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2001).

” Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2001).

“A hypothetical question posed to the [VE] is sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by substantial evidence in the record and accepted as true [by the ALJ].” Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 794 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2001)). Put another way, the hypothetical need not include “any alleged impairments that [the ALJ] has properly rejected as untrue or unsubstantiated.”

Plaintiff does not specify the functional restrictions she believes were omitted from the hypothetical questions, nor does she offer any detail regarding what hypothetical questions she believes should have been presented to the vocational expert. “A hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert is sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by substantial evidence in the record and accepted as true” by the ALJ. Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2001). “The hypothetical question must capture the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies.”