ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.

Sheila Renee Dixon seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for supplemental security income (SSI). Dixon received SSI as a child. The record suggests she received SSI due to mental retardation and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.1 Dixon's child SSI ceased when she turned 18. She then sought adult SSI. Her efforts to obtain adult SSI involve two applications. The applications were consolidated at the agency level.

The Commissioner's decision. After considering Dixon's applications, the Commissioner's ALJ determined that although Dixon a had severe impairment — personality disorder2 — she could do unskilled work.3 Because a vocational expert identified work Dixon can do,4 the ALJ determined Dixon was not disabled under the Social Security Act.5

After the Commissioner's Appeals Council denied a request for review, the ALJ's decision became a final decision for judicial review.6 Dixon filed this case to challenge the decision. In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.7

Mental retardation. Dixon's primary argument is that she meets listing 12.05C.8 That listing applies to mental retardation. To meet listing 12.05C, Dixon must satisfy all of specified criteria.9 Relevant here, meeting the listing requires: "A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function."10 Dixon scored below the required range during IQ testing,11 but the ALJ determined the scores were invalid.12

Because no question exists about the presence of "a physical or other mental impairment," the question before the court is whether substantial evidence supports the determination that Dixon's scores were invalid.13 Substantial evidence exists if a reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to support the determination.14

A reasonable mind would accept the opinions of the examining/testing psychologists as adequate to show Dixon's scores were invalid. The first examiner suspected exaggeration and reported that Dixon failed to do her best on IQ testing.15 The examiner observed that Dixon scored lower at age 18 than she did at age 10.16 The examiner reported that when asked how a piano and a drum were alike, Dixon said she had never heard of them, and then went on to talk about trombones indicating she knew they were musical instruments.17 The first examiner's opinion indicates the scores were invalid.

The second examiner also suspected exaggeration.18 The examiner reported that Dixon put forth very poor effort on intellectual testing.19 He explained that when shown a picture of a table missing a leg, Dixon said she didn't know what a table was, but correctly cited a door knob missing from a door.20 The examiner considered the test scores unreliable due to malingering.21 The second examiner's opinion also indicates the scores were invalid.

The examiners' opinions served as an adequate basis for rejecting the test scores.22 Without valid scores, Dixon did not meet listing 12.05C. Although a person's IQ is presumed stable over time,23 Dixon's scores were lower than her scores as a child. Dixon undermined the presumption by failing to do her best during IQ testing,24 exaggerating her limitations,25 and making inconsistent statements.26 The ALJ did not err.

Available work. Dixon also contends the ALJ failed to show work existed that she can do because she maintains the hypothetical question did not include all of her impairments.27 "A hypothetical question . . . is sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by substantial evidence in the record and accepted as true. The hypothetical question must capture the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies."28

The ALJ's hypothetical question flowed from a mental RFC assessment. After reviewing childhood disability evidence and the first examiner's report,29 three medical experts opined that Dixon can do basic work activities.30 The consultants determined Dixon can work where interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed; the complexity of tasks is learned by rote, few variables, little judgment; and supervision required is simple, direct and concrete. Although one of the experts reviewed the second examiner's report and opined that Dixon had no significant mental impairment,31 a reasonable mind would accept the initial assessment as adequate to capture the concrete consequences of Dixon's impairments. Thus, substantial evidence supports the hypothetical question.

To the extent Dixon complains about the omission of particular examiner findings, an ALJ need not "use specific diagnostic or symptomatic terms where other descriptive terms can adequately define the claimant's impairments."32 The hypothetical question captured the concrete consequences of Dixon's impairments. The vocational expert responded to the hypothetical question and identified available work.33 A vocational expert's testimony answering a properly phrased hypothetical question constitutes substantial evidence.34 Thus, the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Conclusion. Substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ made no error of law. For these reasons, the court DENIES the request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMS the decision denying Dixon's applications.

It is so ordered.