Secretary was entitled to apply Grid despite claimant's moderate anxiety neurosis, because the court finds substantial support for Appeals Council finding that the level of work the claimant can do is not affected by the nonexertional limitations.

Pain can constitute a significant nonexertional impairment which precludes naked application of the Grid and requires use of a vocational expert. The medical-vocational guidelines are not dispositive of the status of persons whose exertional limitations are further complicated by other non-exertional ailments. The Secretary must engage in an "individualized analysis" to determine whether the combination of exertional and nonexertional impairments, in light of the claimant's age, education, and work experience, renders her disabled. Conflicts in the evidence are for the Secretary to resolve. Court suggests Secretary present "more specific expert evidence concerning [the claimant's] ability to function in the workplace, coupled with a vocational expert's testimony as to the availability of jobs in the national economy which someone possessing claimant's ... limitations might fill." Secretary not obliged to take claimant's assertions of disabling pain at face value.

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.

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.

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.

The Court "pays particular attention' to the ALJ's evaluation of complaints of pain in light of their subjective nature," quoting Sherwin v. Sec'y HHS, 685 F.2d 1,3 (1st. Cir. 1982). Under SSR 85-15, the ability to be punctual, attending work on a consistent basis and staying at work all day are demanded by any work environment, regardless of skill level. Moderate limitations in these abilities may erode the occupational base "at lease marginally and possibly more so." Conflicts in evidence are for the Commissioner, not the courts, to resolve. Where a nonexertional limitation only marginally reduces the claimant's ability to perform a full range of unskilled work, the ALJ was justified in basing his determination that the claimant was not disabled on the Grids.

ALJ was free to rely solely on the Grids where he found that nonexertional impairments did not have a significant impact on the claimant's ability to perform the full range of sedentary work. Complaints of pain found credible only in part. Because claimant sought no treatment for pain, ALJ was free to discount complaints of severity. Because pain did not significantly limit claimant's ability to work, ALJ was permitted to base his decision entirely on the GRIDS.

Grid use precluded in view of history of significant mental disorders. Court questions ALJ's ability to assess claimant's RFC when unaided by any physician assessment.

Even though Chronic Fatigue Syndrome POMS were promulgated after adverse ALJ decision, previous version of same section of POMS re: evaluation of Epstein Barr Virus set forth the same principles. Since historically, EBV and CFS have been used interchangeably (even though the medical evidence is questionable as to whether EBV causes CFS), as a practical matter, the EBV POMS can be applied to CFS cases. Given the uncontroverted evidence that the claimant suffered from CFS, blind reliance on a lack of objective findings is wholly inconsistent with the Secretary's policy as expressed in the POMS and in other pertinent policy statements. No need for objective medical findings. "At this point there is no 'dipstick' laboratory test for chronic fatigue syndrome;" the medical community instead uses an "operational" diagnostic procedure, so the disease is "not per se excluded from coverage because it cannot be conclusively diagnosed in a laboratory setting." The absence of definitive diagnostic tests makes it plain that the failure of some doctors to state conclusive diagnoses does not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding that the claimant did not suffer from CFS. Opinion of non-treating non-examining doctor that fatigue did not cause significant functional limitations because there was no objective abnormality found to explain the fatigue is not entitled to any weight. The amount of weight given the conclusions of non-testifying, non-examining physicians will vary with the circumstances, including the nature of the illness and the information provided the expert. The Grid is based on a claimant's exertional capacity and can only be applied when claimant's nonexertional limitations do not significantly impair claimant's ability to perform at a given exertional level. Where hypothetical to VE assumed a condition not supported by the medical evidence, the ALJ could not rely on the VE's opinion as a basis for non-disability finding.

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.

Where the Medical-Vocational Guidelines require a finding of "not disabled," the ALJ need not name specific jobs that the claimant could perform.

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.

ALJ did not err in relying on Grid where substantial evidence supported ALJ's conclusion that pain did not impair claimant's ability to perform light work.

No substantial evidence that hypertension not controlled because of claimant's failure to follow prescribed treatment. Any departure from a grid rule must, at a minimun, be explained. ALJ made factual errors in application of grid. Remanded.