An ALJ's credibility determinations are owed "considerable deference." Claimant did not seek medical treatment during the time in question therefore there was no credible medical evidence supporting claim of pain during that time period. Appeals Council in this own motion review, did not have to defer to the ALJ's interpretation. Complaints of pain need not be precisely corroborated by objective findings, but they must be consistent with medical findings. Where there is no credible medical evidence to support claim of pain, the Appeals Council does not have to defer to the ALJ's interpretation. Court upholds ALJ's finding that claimant's severe dysthymic disorder met listing 12.04. Where claimant did not seek medical treatment for pain, there was no credible evidence supporting the claim of pain. Complaints of pain need not be precisely corroborated by objective findings, but they must be consistent with medical findings.

20 CFR §404.970, which lists four situations in which AC will review a case, is not an exhaustive list of all situations where Appeals Council may take review. Restrictive interpretation of AC's right to own motion review could interfere with administration of claims and monitoring of department. An ALJ's decision to give or deny credit to a particular witness's testimony should not be reversed absent an adequate explanation of the grounds for the reviewing body's source of disagreement with the ALJ. Court reverses where Appeals Council, on own motion review, finds no severe impairment but fails to state reasons for rejecting ALJ's credibility determination.