The question in this social-security case is whether the determination by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that the appellant, Martha Davis, was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence. We have had the benefit of thorough opinions by an administrative law judge 3 and the District Court. 4 We have little of substance to add, and we affirm.

We have considered the principal arguments advanced by counsel for Ms. Davis. We cannot agree that the hypothetical question addressed to the vocational expert failed to state accurately those impairments of the claimant that the administrative law judge, on the basis of substantial evidence, found to exist. Nor do we agree that evidence of vascular problems occurring after the decision of the ALJ was sufficiently material to invalidate the ALJ’s findings, or to require a remand for further administrative proceedings. The ALJ’s reasons for not believing all of the claimant’s testimony about pain were soundly based and fully explained in his opinion. We do not believe that the other arguments advanced in support of reversal require discussion.

Affirmed.