Dysthymic disorder is severe impairment. To determine the severity of a mental impairment, an ALJ must rate the degree of functional loss in four areas that the SSA has identified as essential to work: 1) activities of daily living; 2) social functioning; 3) concentration, persistence, or pace; and 4) deterioration or decompensation in work or work- like settings. Substantial evidence did not support ALJ's finding of a non-severe mental impairment where medical advisor's uncontradicted assessment that claimant had moderate restrictions in activities of daily living. Substantial evidence did not support ALJ's finding of a non-severe mental impairment where medical advisor's uncontradicted assessment that claimant had moderate restrictions in activities of daily living.

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.

Making an error of law does not constitute bias. The fact that the claimant was committed as a "sexually dangerous person" does not mean that he is disabled under the Social Security Act.

Since plaintiff failed to raise sequential evaluation issue, the court does not have to consider the overall validity of the process. Claimant's work difficulties "stemmed from personality problems that were not such as to constitute mental disability."

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.

Possibility of mental impairment causing failure to take medication where medical report states that non-compliance "may be inherent to suspicious paranoia." "It could be unfair for the Secretary to refuse to give disability benefits under § 404.1530 if the claimant's mental impairment was the cause of her not taking medication."