With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". final assessment was Sarna could “perform no more than mild to moderate physical tasks.” The ALJ determined “[Sarna’s] past relevant work as a seeretary/medical transcriptionist did not require the performance of work functions precluded by her medically determinable impairments.” Additionally, the ALJ determined Sarna’s statements regarding her impairments and ability to work on the date her insured status expired “are not entirely credible in light of discrepancies between the [claim ant’s] assertions and information contained in the documentary reports.” We find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determinations regarding Sarna’s ability as of December 31, 1994, to perform past relevant work. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 748 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Pyland, 149 F.3d at 876-77 (evidence

A: holding that an alj cannot discredit lay testimony solely because it is not supported by medical evidence in the record
B: holding that alj should have included complaints of pain in hypothetical question
C: holding the alj may discredit complaints of claimant where inconsistencies appear in record
D: holding that an alj is entitled to make a credibility determination regarding the claimants subjective complaints after specifically addressing these complaints and reviewing the medical evidence in the record
C.