decision is considered to be supported by substantial evidence. Morris v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 333 (5th Cir.1988). However, if the hypothetical question is defective due to the ALJ’s failure to accurately pox-tray a claimant’s physical and mental impairments, a detexrnination of non-disability based on the vocational expert’s answer to a defective question is not suppox-ted by substantial evidence, and cannot stand. Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 707 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir.1994)). ALJ Leinberger asked VE Litt to consider a hypothetical person with residual functional capacity for sedentary work and who would experience “mild to moderate pain discomfort ... while performing in that level. ” Tr. 206. Plaintiff argues that ALJ Leinber Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1456 (9th
holding that alj should have included complaints of pain in hypothetical question 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 holding that hypothetical question should have included allegations of pain which were supported by record holding that the alj did not err in discounting a claimants reports of pain where they were not supported by the medical record holding it is error for an alj to fail to consider factors relevant to the pain analysis which are supported by the record