ORDER
Cаrol Kennedy, a Michigan resident represented by counsel, appeals a district court judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of hеr application for social security disability insurance benefits. The parties have waived oral argument and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Kennedy filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits on December 23, 1996. Kennedy alleged that she was disabled due to right shoulder pain secondary to recurrent tears of the rotator cuff and headaches. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Kennedy could perform her past rеlevant work as a clerk-typist, data entry clerk, and receptionist. Therefore, the ALJ denied benefits. The Appeals Counсil declined to review the ALJ’s decision. Kennedy then filed a civil action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. Upоn de novo review of a magistrate judge’s report, the district court affirmed the denial of benefits and granted judgment to the Commissionеr. It is from the district court’s judgment that Kennedy now appeals.
Upon review, we conclude that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
Initially, it is clarified that the Commissioner’s decision was reached at the fourth step of the five-step аpproach in determining eligibility for benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The first and second steps are not in issue, i.e., the claimant is not gainfully employed and she is severely impaired. Kennedy remarks in a footnote in her brief that she believes her impairment meets or satisfies listing 1.13 of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. In addition, at the fourth step, the claimant has the burden of showing that she is unable to perform her previous type of wоrk. See Studaway v. Sec’y of Health & Human
In footnote five of her brief, Kennedy simply states that she believes that her surgeries meet listing 1.13 of Appendix 1. Kennedy states that she is not briefing the issue, but requests that this argument be considered by the court. However, issues which are “adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumеntation, are deemed waived.” United States v. Elder,
Kennedy contends that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial еvidence. Kennedy argues that she has undergone four torn-rotator-cuff surgeries, suffers from headaches, and is required to take еxtensive pain medication for her conditions. Kennedy argues that the Commissioner did not properly assess her complaints оf pain. Kennedy states that her pain has caused her to be disabled from gainful employment, including her past relevant work. The ALJ is nоt required to accept a claimant’s own testimony regarding allegations of disabling pain when such testimony is not supported by the record. See Gooch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
In addition to considering Kennedy’s testimony, the ALJ also evaluated Kennedy’s treatment history. The ALJ acknowledged that Kennedy underwent four surgical procedures for a torn rotator cuff. The ALJ rеcognized that the procedures reflected an individual with a limiting impairment. Medical notes indicated that after her second surgery, doctors recommended that Kennedy do nothing and simply live with her shoulder pain. Further, Dr. Heinrich indicated that Kennedy tended to prefer surgical intervention over behavioral solutions to her condition. Kennedy followed non-surgical treatment solutions in a hаlf-hearted manner. Given the medical evidence and Kennedy’s activities, the ALJ did nor err in concluding that Kennedy was not disabled due to pain.
Kennedy also asserts that her four surgeries establish that she was entitled to a closed period of disability. However, the ALJ dеclined to award Kennedy a closed period of disability because the evidence did not show a continuing twelve month pеriod when she was unable to perform her previous type of work. See Abbott v. Sullivan,
Kennedy contends that the testimony of the vocational expert was inadequate to support the ALJ’s decision. Kennedy contends that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational еxpert did not include all her limitations. The ALJ credited only those restrictions which were supported by the record as a whole and rejected the unsupported allegations. The vocational expert testified that Kennedy’s past work as a clerk-typist, data entry clerk, and receptionist was sedentary and semiskilled work. There is no evidence contradicting this testimony and the ALJ fоund that Kennedy could perform her past work. Because the vocational expert’s testimony was in response to a hypothetical question that accurately reflected Kennedy’s impairments, the ALJ could rely on the conclusions of the vocational expert to find that Kennedy could perform her past relevant work. Felisky v. Bowen,
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.