ALJ allowed to rely on medical advisor's opinion in the face of contradictory findings. Claimant's burden at Step 4 includes proving the particular demands of past work that she cannot perform. Secretary allowed to rely on medical advisor's opinion that the treadmill exercise test was acceptable. Treating physician's opinion not to be accorded greater weight.

If applicant has met her burdens of production and proof at Steps 1-4 of sequential evaluation, then SSA has burden at Step 5 of coming forward with evidence of specific jobs in the national economy that the applicant can still perform. ALJ met burden at Step 5 to come forward with evidence by introducing testimony of vocational expert. Where ALJ's decision failed to cite jobs testified to by VE, remand, rather than payment of benefits was appropriate remedy because it was not clear that claimant was entitled to benefits. Remand is proper remedy where there are conflicts in the evidence that must be resolved.

Court gives qualified approval to Grids as valid exercise of Secretary's statutory authority. Secretary may, using Grids, take administrative notice that substantial gainful work existed in the national economy for a person with claimant's impairment, background, age and education. Where a claimant presents a prima facie case of disability-i. e., that he can not engage in his previous type of employment-it is the Secretary's responsibility to establish that the claimant can engage in alternate employment and that such employment exists.

Although plaintiff has several impairments, court holds that there was considerable evidence in the record that he was able to work with these problems for many years. Further, plaintiff's mental impairment is found to be non-severe, although it moderately restricts five out of ten basic work-related functions. Claimant has the burden of proving that he is disabled at Step 4, meaning that he must prove that his disability is serious enough to prevent him from working at his former jobs. At Step 5, however, the Secretary must show that there are other jobs in the economy that claimant can nonetheless perform. Implying that claimant bears burden of proving three threshold steps. Meeting a listing automatically entitles claimant to benefits. Meeting a listing automatically entitles claimant to benefits.

Approves administrative notice of occupational reference materials for information regarding various types of work. Court notes that the 4th circuit has held that the Secretary may rely on general categories in the Supplement to the DOT as presumptively applicable to the claimant's past work. Claimant's burden to prove an inability to perform her former type of work. necessarily includes an obligation to produce evidence on that issue. Claimant must not only show that she cannot do her former job, she must demonstrate that she cannot return to her former type of work. Opinions of non-examining consulting physicians are entitled to weight. Physician's conclusory statements about claimant's disability not binding on Secretary. The Secretary can rely on a job held more than 10 years ago in determining whether claimant can return to prior work. In order to meet burden at step 4, claimant must establish that she cannot return to her former type of work, not just her inability to return to a particular past job.

Pre-GRID case. Once it is determined that claimant cannot perform her past work, Secretary's burden of showing capacity to do other work is not met by taking administrative notice of the general availability of light and sedentary work in the national economy. Step 5 burden is not met by ALJ taking administrative notice of the general availability of light and sedentary work in the national economy.

Vocatoinal Factors. Stress. "Stress is not a characteristic of a job, but instead reflects an individual's subjective response to a particular situation ... Without an evaluation of Lancellotta's vocational abilities in light of his anxiety disorder, there is no basis for the ALJ's conclusion that he can perform low stress work." Stress is a factor which must be considered on an individualized basis for performing a range of work at step 5. Vocational evidence that there are a significant number of jobs in the economy that would be "low stress" for the average worker falls short of the requirements of Ruling 85-15. ALJ must undertake subjective, individualized inquiry into what job attributes are likely to produce disabling stress in the claimant, and what, if any, jobs exist in the economy that do not possess these attributes. ALJ must make subjective, individualized inquiry into nature of and what triggers claimant's nonexertional limitations. ALJ erred by failing to make findings as to claimant's ability to perform basic mental work-related activities. Although the ALJ apparently relied upon claimant's even demeanor at the disability hearing as evidence of his ability generally to work at low-stress jobs, we consider a claimant's ability to visit doctors and describe his medical problems coherently as insufficient evidence of his ability to work. Hypothetical to vocational expert is inadequate because it failed to elicit from the vocational expert any testimony directed specifically to the conditions that are likely to produce stress in the claimant. The basic mental demands of competitive, remunerative, unskilled work include the abilities (on a sustained basis) to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; to respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations; and to deal with changes in a routine work setting. A substantial loss of ability to meet any of these basic work- related activities would severely limit the potential occupational base. This, in turn, would justify a finding of disability because even favorable age, education, or work experience will not offset such a severely limited occupational base." Social Security Ruling 85-15. The burden of showing the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform (Step 5) rests on the Secretary. Vocational evidence that there are a significant number of jobs in the economy that would be "low stress" for the average worker falls short of the requirements of Ruling 85-15. ALJ must undertake subjective, individualized inquiry into what job attributes are likely to produce disabling stress in the claimant, and what, if any, jobs exist in the economy that do not possess these attributes.

Cardiac and mental impairments. Although the Secretary is not bound by a psychiatrist's "sweeping conclusion" as to disability, when uncontroverted evidence exists as to mental impairment, the Secretary should assess the impact of the alleged mental impairment on the claimant's ability to engage in SGA. Grid cannot be applied if claimant's nonexertional impairment significantly affects claimant's ability to perform the full range of jobs requiring medium or lesser work. Secretary must use other means, such as evidence procured from vocational experts, to meet her burden of proving the availability of jobs in the national economy that claimant can perform. None of the physicians who examined claimant provided any medical findings concerning the impact of his heart condition on his residual functional capacity. Neither the Appeals Council nor the court is qualified to make this medical judgment about residual functional capacity based solely on bare medical findings as to claimant's heart condition. The claimant has the burden of showing disability serious enough to prevent him from working at his former jobs. The burden then shifts to the Secretary to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can nonetheless perform. Where no examining physician has provided "any medical findings concerning the impact of [claimant's] heart condition or his residual functional capacity... [n]either the Appeals Council nor this court is qualified to make this medical judgment about residual functional capacity based solely on bare medical findings as to claimant's heart condition." None of the physicians who examined claimant provided any medical findings concerning the impact of his heart condition on his residual functional capacity.

At Step 4, the ALJ is entitled to credit the claimant's own description of her past work and her functional limitations, but the ALJ has some burden independently to develop the record. Citing Santiago, 944 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991). Remand. Illegibility of non-trivial parts of medical record, combined with identifiable diagnoses and symptoms indicating more than a mild impairment, alerted ALJ to need for expert guidance regarding the extent of the claimant's RFC to perform her past employment. Case remanded. With a few exceptions, an ALJ, as a lay person, is not qualified to interpret raw data in a medical record. Where claimant sufficiently put her inability to perform her past work in issue, the ALJ must measure the claimant's capabilities, and ordinarily an expert's RFC evaluation is essential unless the extent of functional loss, and its effect on job performance, would be apparent even to a lay person. Ventricular tachycardia, frequent PVCs, sinus tachycardia, arterial hypertension

Environmental Conditions at Work. At Step 4, the claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot return to his previous work. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can nonetheless perform. To meet her initial burden it was not enough for claimant to show simply that her specific job as an illustrator entailed exposure to smoke and fumes; she would have to show that such exposure would be a condition of this sort of work generally. Remand where the record shows no meaningful inquiry by the ALJ into whether or not it the claimant could engage in her former type of work, technical illustration, without exposure to substances to which claimant is allergic. Although claimant did not raise the issue at the hearing, her original written application for disability stated that she was allergic to rubber cement, paint thinner, and fixative sprays and that the latter two items are used in art departments.

Fact that claimant failed to seek medical treatment was arguably inconsistent with his complaint of pain and lent credence to suspicions that he may have been exaggerating. Only when claimant meets his burden to establish that he's unable to return to his former work is there a need for SSA to show that there's available work. Purpose of D.Ct. review is to make a determination of whether the findings of the Secretary are supported by substantial evidence, not to conduct a de novo review of the evidence proffered at the ALJ level. The facts that appellee allegedly took no medication, slept 11-13 hours a night and failed to seek medical treatment are arguably inconsistent with his complaints of pain and lend credence to the Secretary's suspicions that he may have been exaggerating.

Transportation to Work. At Step 4, test is whether claimant has ability to return to past relevant work performed at substantial gainful activity level. Past insubstantial activity cannot demonstrate an ability to perform SGA. Available at DLC. Deference owed to ALJ’s credibility determination, but Appeals Council can overturn ALJ credibility determination if not supported by substantial evidence. Remand. Eligibility for Disabled Adult Child benefits requires that disability began before age 22 and continued until 6 months prior to application for benefits. Past insubstantial work cannot demonstrate an ability to perform SGA. Secretary's conclusion that claimant with schizophrenia is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. Claimant's ability to travel is "weak evidence" of a capacity to work, especially in light of repeated hospitalizations. The conclusions of two doctors that claimant can work are not persuasive, when the doctors' analysis consist of "four checkmarks on a standard form with an additional line or two of 'comments' at the bottom."

At Step 4, claimant will be found not disabled when she retains the RFC to perform the actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past relevant job, as she performed it. The claimant is the primary source for vocational documentation. It's claimant's duty to describe her impairments so as to raise the point to the Commissioner how the impairments preclude the performance of her prior work. Where the testimony and evidence did not go far enough to raise a "meaningful issue" in regard to how claimant's impairments affected her ability to work, the ALJ had no duty to further develop the record by obtaining RFC assessments.

At Step 5, SSA bears burden to come forward with evidence showing that there are jobs the claimant can do despite limitations. Since SSA is not represented as a litigant, it is better to think of Step 5 not as a shifting of burdens, but as a rule that the claimant is not under any obligation to produce evidence at Step 5. If an essential factual issue has not been resolved and there is no clear entitlement to benefits, the court must remand for further proceedings rather than order award of benefits. Court should order payment of benefits rather than remand only in the unusual case in which the underlying facts and law compel only one conclusion and SSA has no discretion to act in any way other than to pay benefits (i.e., where there is overwhelming proof of disability).

The burden of showing the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform (Step 5) rests on the Secretary. Cert. denied, 461 U.S. 958, 103 S.Ct. 2432, 77 L.Ed.2d 1318 (1983). Good explanation of purpose and use of the Grids. The Grids are based on a claimant's exertional capacity and can only be applied when claimant's non-exertional limitations do not significantly impair claimant's ability to perform at a given exertional level. At Step 4, the claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot return to his previous work. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can nonetheless perform.

Once claimant makes a prima facie case by proving she cannot return to her prior work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show that there is other work she can perform.

The claimant has the initial burden of showing that he is unable to return to his former work, the burden is upon the government to offer evidence showing there is generally available employment of a kind for which the claimant is fit and qualified. The fact that the claimant has made no attempt to find other employment, if proven, may suffice to satisfy the government's burden.

Transferable Skills. Grids. Court remanded where ALJ relied on Grid rule requiring transferrable skills but failed to find explicitly (or to indicate the basis for his implicit finding) that 55-year old claimant's skills were transferable. The claimant has the burden of showing disability serious enough to prevent him from working at his former jobs. The burden then shifts to the Secretary to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can nonetheless perform.