hypothetical question is flawed because he asked the expert to consider mild to moderate pain while performing sedentary work, rather than specific limitations imposed by pain. Plaintiff argues that “[t]his ‘limitation’ is beyond the scope of the VE’s expertise and it has rendered the opinion unreliable.” Pl.’s Br. at p. 20. There is a certain degree of intrinsic logic to plaintiffs point. Vocational experts typically lack medical expertise. However, plaintiff cites no authority for his proposition that a hypothetical question is inherently flawed if it requires a vocational expert to factor effects of pain into his answer. The court’s independent research, moreover, leads to an opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Vega v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 265 F.3d 1214, 1220 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269, 1276
holding that an alj may consider a claimants household activities in evaluating complaints of disabling pain holding that alj should have included complaints of pain in hypothetical question recognizing that pain is a completely subjective phenomenon and that secretary must consider all available evidence in assessing complaints of pain holding that hypothetical question should have included allegations of pain which were supported by record holding that evidence relied on by alj was insufficient to undermine pain allegations where medical records were replete with claimants reports of pain and of prescriptions