Ability to Stoop. Medical records showing treatment limited to 10 months is evidence that impairment did not last the required 12 months. RFC limited claimant to four hours of sitting, less than the six hours usually required for sedentary work. This limitation erodes the occupational base more than slightly and, while it does not mandate a finding of disabled, it does require the ALJ to "cite examples of occupations or jobs the individual can do and provide a statement of the incidence of such work in the region where the individual resides or in several regions of the country." SSR 96- 9p, It is not clear at all that claimant's job as a residential counselor was sedentary in nature. The ability to stoop incorporates the ability to bend. "An ability to stoop occasionally is required in most unskilled sedentary occupations and a complete inability to stoop would significantly erode the unskilled sedentary occupational base and a finding that the individual is disabled would usually apply."

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.

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."

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.

Claimant's failure to seek treatment is not evidence of medical improvement where claimant didn't seek treatment for 2.5 years prior to initial disability finding. Whether claimant continues to meet a listing is not dispositive in determining medical improvement. ALJ erred in finding medical improving based on claimant no longer meeting listing. In order to show medical improvement, there must be a decrease in the medical severity of the impairment based on changes in the symptoms, signs and laboratory findings associated with the impairment. Claimant's failure to seek treatment is not evidence of medical improvement where claimant didn't seek treatment for 2.5 years prior to initial disability finding.

Where claimant does not follow the prescribed medical advice which would remedy or reduce his impairments, such conduct is "arguably inconsistent with his complaints of pain."

Fibrositis. Although Appeals Council was uncertain that fibrositis is a recognized disease, it emphasized that the nomenclature used to diagnose a condition is immaterial to a finding of disability. Medical expert's sworn statement that "if claimant has fibrositis" she is disabled, not sufficient to establish finding of disability where claimant was not undergoing any treatment and expert did not know if fibrositis would respond to therapy. The failure to follow restorative treatment without good cause can lead to a finding of not disabled.

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.