Generally, a remand order is an interlocutory order that does not divest a court of jurisdiction over a case. Absent a clear statement to the contrary, legislation should not ordinarily be interpreted to oust a federal court's equitable power, or its jurisdiction over a pending case. Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 requires use of the "medical improvement" standard in continuing disability reviews. Where statute provides that "[t]he Secretary shall notify [an individual class member] by certified mail that he may request a review of" his disqualification, district court has authority to establish the content of the notice. Orders requiring SSA to issue specific notices and to follow certain procedures for determining class membership were like an injunction and were appealable on an interlocutory basis.

Leading case setting out analysis to be used in analyzing pain. There must be a clinically determinable medical impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged. Other evidence including statements of the claimant or his doctor, consistent with the medical findings, shall be part of the calculus. Symptoms such as pain can result in greater severity of impairment than may be clearly demonstrated by the objective physical manifestations of a disorder. ALJ must consider six factors in evaluating a claimant's subjective allegations of pain: (1) The nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of any pain; (2) Precipitating and aggravating factors (e.g., movement, activity, environmental conditions); (3) Type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side-effects of any pain medication; (4) Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain; (5) Functional restrictions; and (6) The claimant's daily activities. Where the degree of pain alleged is greater than that which can reasonably be anticipated based on the objective physical findings the Secretary should explore other information. SSR 82-58.

An ALJ's credibility determinations are owed "considerable deference." Claimant did not seek medical treatment during the time in question therefore there was no credible medical evidence supporting claim of pain during that time period. Appeals Council in this own motion review, did not have to defer to the ALJ's interpretation. Complaints of pain need not be precisely corroborated by objective findings, but they must be consistent with medical findings. Where there is no credible medical evidence to support claim of pain, the Appeals Council does not have to defer to the ALJ's interpretation. Court upholds ALJ's finding that claimant's severe dysthymic disorder met listing 12.04. Where claimant did not seek medical treatment for pain, there was no credible evidence supporting the claim of pain. Complaints of pain need not be precisely corroborated by objective findings, but they must be consistent with medical findings.

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 claimant has the burden of showing an impairment that is medically determinable. In some rare instances (this case is not such an instance), a claimant can satisfy that burden without medical evidence.

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.

Discussion of observable signs of pain. ALJ under no duty to go to "inordinate lengths to develop a claimant's case." Holding that Secretary is not at the mercy of every claimant's subjective assertions of pain applies equally well to subjective claims of dizziness. Claimant must show that her impairment is "medically determinable" and only in a rare case can she do this without medical evidence.