Regulations provide that in order to receive widow(er)s benefits, impairments must meet or equal a listing, and that age, education and work experience are not to be considered in disability determination. Court holds that residual functional capacity cannot be ignored in considering medical equivalence to a listing in widow(er)s cases.

Findings of medical equivalence must be based on medical findings that are at least equal in severity and duration to the listed findings.

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.

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.