Medical expert's testimony, coupled with the negative inference that arose from claimant's failure to seek any medical treatment for 21 years, and current assessments of appellant's medical condition, constitutes substantial evidence. ALJ's choice among competing inferences was reasonable.

Disparity between claimant's symptoms and medication prescribed did not compel conclusion that doctor was inaccurate in describing severity of claimant's mental impairments, even though that inference could be drawn. Doctor was a general practitioner, not a psychiatrist. Court comments that ALJ's conclusion about schizophrenic claimant's mental RFC is incredible and that the evidence was not weighed in and sifted in a balanced and even-handed manner. ALJ had already heard case initially and on remand from district court. Testimony of a non-examining medical advisor--to be distinguished from the non-testimonial written reports in the instant case--can alone constitute substantial evidence, depending on the circumstances.

Conflicts in evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve. Inference could be drawn that claimant would have secured more treatment if her pain had been as intense as alleged. Court will review ALJ decisions to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. Court must uphold the Secretary's findings if a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support his conclusion. Gaps in the medical record that show a lack of treatment are "evidence" for purposes of the disability determination.