November 3, 2015. The claimant was found to have severe impairments and had moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, but the ALJ held he could perform light work. A vocational expert testified in the administrative hearing, and was given a hypothetical example of a claimant who could perform unskilled work, with little interaction with others. The vocational expert based his testimony on this hypothetical claimant in concluding that such an individual could perform other jobs; the ALJ used this testimony to come to the same conclusion. The district court reversed, holding that the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert did not account for the ALJ’s findings of limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace.