672 (5th Cir.2003). Here, plaintiffs symptoms are “chronic” and “constant.” Pl.’s Br. at p. 14; see Tr. 78, 196. Plaintiff does not show that his symptoms wax and wane. ALJ Leinberger was not required to make explicit findings regarding plaintiffs ability to maintain employment on a regular and continuing basis. Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d at 465. Plaintiffs first point of error therefore fails. B. Unreliable Expert Vocational Testimony (Point of Error # 4). When eliciting expert vocational testimony, an ALJ typically poses a hypothetical question that incorporates all disabilities that the ALJ has found. If the disabilities recognized by the ALJ are reasonable under the evidence, and the ALJ’s ultimate determination is consistent with the expert vocational testimony, the e r.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Haas v. Barnhart, 91 FecLAppx. 942,
holding that hypothetical question should have included allegations of pain which were supported by record 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 claimants pain should have formed a paxt of aljs question to vocational expert holding that alj may not base adverse credibility finding on his perceptions of claimants pain at the hearing where record shows objective evidence of claimants pain