* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50764 Summary Calendar THERESA LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-61-SC March 7, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Theresa Lopez argues that the Administrative Law JudgeÂ’s (ALJÂ’s) determination that she is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Relying on the general classification of jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), Lopez contends that the vocational expertÂ’s opinion that there are jobs existing that she is physically capable of performing was erroneous.

The vocational expert listed a number of existing jobs that the expert opined Lopez was physically capable of performing, but also acknowledged that some of the jobs within those categories involved physical activities beyond LopezÂ’s limitations.

However, the vocational expert further testified that there were a substantial number of jobs within those categories that Lopez was physically able to perform. Thus, there was no actual conflict between the expertÂ’s opinion and the general job classifications contained in the DOT. See Carey v. Apfel , 230 F.3d 131, 146 (5th Cir. 2000). Further, LopezÂ’s counsel did not raise the DOT issue during the hearing and did not cross-examine the expert on her opinion regarding LopezÂ’s residual functional capacity to perform the listed jobs. There is an adequate basis in the record to support the ALJÂ’s reliance on the vocational testimony. Id . Lopez also argues that the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert did not encompass or properly portray all of her disabilities. The hypothetical question presented by the ALJ to the vocational expert reasonably incorporated all of LopezÂ’s disabilities supported by the medical evidence and the testimony in the record. See Boyd v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 698, 707 (5th Cir. 2001).

Lopez also argues that the ALJ failed to give proper consideration to her complaints of pain. It is within the ALJÂ’s discretion to discredit complaints of pain based on the complainantÂ’s testimony of her daily activities in combination with the medical records. See Griego v. Sullivan , 940 F.2d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1991). The ALJÂ’s determination that LopezÂ’s pain was not debilitating is supported by the objective medical evidence reflecting that her rheumatoid arthritis condition remained stable and that her pain was reasonably controlled by medication. See Johnson v. Bowen , 864 F.2d 340, 348 (5th Cir. 1988). It was also supported by LopezÂ’s testimony regarding her ability to perform daily household chores that would have been precluded by debilitating pain.

The decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The decision of the Commissioner to deny Lopez disability benefits is AFFIRMED.

No. 01-50764