Ricky Davis appeals from an order of the District Court 1 affirming the denial of supplemental security income. On appeal, Davis’s only challenge is to the adequacy of the hypothetical the administrative law judge (ALJ) posed to the vocational expert (VE). We find no merit to this challenge. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). Specifically, we conclude that the hypothetical set forth those impairments that were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, that were accepted as true, and that captured the concrete consequences of the impairments and thus that the ALJ properly relied on the VE’s response to the hypothetical to find Davis not disabled. See Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917, 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that VE’s testimony constitutes substantial evidence when it is based on hypothetical that accounts for all of claimant’s proven impairments). We affirm the judgment of the District Court.