Certainly board certification has never been held a prerequisite to qualification as an expert medical witness. The medical opinion of specialists may be entitled to greater weight than that of general practitioners

Report of non-examining, non-testifying physician may, under some circumstances, act as substantial evidence to support a finding that a claimant is not disabled.

ALJ allowed to rely on medical advisor's opinion in the face of contradictory findings. Claimant's burden at Step 4 includes proving the particular demands of past work that she cannot perform. Secretary allowed to rely on medical advisor's opinion that the treadmill exercise test was acceptable. Treating physician's opinion not to be accorded greater weight.

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.

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.

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.

Court consider the medical opinion given by one or more physicians designated by the Secretary in deciding medical equivalence. Disability finding for widow's benefits requires meeting or medical equivalence to a listed impairment. It is for the Secretary, not the court, to resolve conflicts in the evidence. The weight to which opinions of medical advisors are entitled will vary with the circumstances, including the nature of the illness and the information provided the expert. Obviously, the fact that the experts have neither examined nor testified lessens the probative power of their reports.

ALJ must determine what evidence he credits in order to pose a hypothetical which will be relevant and helpful. The issue of whether or not the testimony of a medical advisor who reviews the record and testifies at the hearing can alone constitute substantial evidence varies with the circumstances, including the nature of the illness and the information provided. The 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.

Although views of medical advisor are not always by themselves substantial evidence when medical advisor does not examine claimant, this rule is of limited value in a case involving a condition alleged to have existed many years before, and where claimant's proof of disability is slight. Conflict between evidence provided by the medical advisor and the treating physician is for Secretary to resolve. The principle enunciated in Browne is by no means an absolute rule. Findings of a non-testifying, non-examining physician by themselves, may constitute substantial evidence, in the face of a treating physician's conclusory statement of disability.

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.