With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". findings of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ determined that Avilez retained a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work with an additional restriction: she could only stand or walk two hours out of an eight-hour work day. AR 16; see Moore v. Apfel, 216 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that an RFC may deviate from the Commissioner’s Medical-Vocational Guideline grids “[w]hen the grids do not completely describe the claimant’s abilities and limitations”). Since the RFC fell between the categories of light and sedentary, the ALJ correctly decided to consult a vocational expert (“VE”) for expert testimony. AR 25; see, e.g., Thomas, 278 F.3d at 960 (<HOLDING>). The ALJ properly relied on the VE’s testimony

A: holding that a vocational expert must be consulted when an rfc falls between two categories
B: holding that vocational experts testimony that there were jobs claimant could perform constituted substantial evidence
C: holding that claimants pain should have formed a paxt of aljs question to vocational expert
D: holding that vocational expert testimony in response to a hypothetical can constitute substantial evidence of residual functional capacity
A.