District court erred in sua sponte, affirming denial of benefits without affording claimant an opportunity to brief the issues in the case. Follows holdings of 4th, 5th and 6th circuits. Claimant filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment after district court's affirmance and appealed to circuit court when district court denied the motion.

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.