With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Astrue, 518 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir.2008) (Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence in record as whole; substantial evidence is relevant evidence that reasonable mind would find adequate to support decision). Haught’s primary argument is that the ALJ erred by not adopting the medical-source statement of Richard Jirovec, her treating physician, a 007) (noting that if impairment can be controlled by treatment, it cannot be considered disabling); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (more weight will be given to opinion when medical source presents relevant evidence, such as medical signs, in support of opinion). We also reject Haught’s related challenge to the hypothetical that the ALJ posed to the VE. See Robson v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 389, 392 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm. 1 . The Honorable

A: recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard
B: holding that the alj properly relied on medical evidence undermining claimants subjective assessment of limitations
C: recognizing that ves testimony is substantial evidence when it is based on accurately phrased hypothetical capturing concrete consequences of claimants limitations
D: holding that the alj properly discounted a claimants testimony about the extent of his pain and limitations based on his ability to travel
C.