If applicant has met her burdens of production and proof at Steps 1-4 of sequential evaluation, then SSA has burden at Step 5 of coming forward with evidence of specific jobs in the national economy that the applicant can still perform. ALJ met burden at Step 5 to come forward with evidence by introducing testimony of vocational expert. Where ALJ's decision failed to cite jobs testified to by VE, remand, rather than payment of benefits was appropriate remedy because it was not clear that claimant was entitled to benefits. Remand is proper remedy where there are conflicts in the evidence that must be resolved.

Court gives qualified approval to Grids as valid exercise of Secretary's statutory authority. Secretary may, using Grids, take administrative notice that substantial gainful work existed in the national economy for a person with claimant's impairment, background, age and education. Where a claimant presents a prima facie case of disability-i. e., that he can not engage in his previous type of employment-it is the Secretary's responsibility to establish that the claimant can engage in alternate employment and that such employment exists.

Vocatoinal Factors. Stress. "Stress is not a characteristic of a job, but instead reflects an individual's subjective response to a particular situation ... Without an evaluation of Lancellotta's vocational abilities in light of his anxiety disorder, there is no basis for the ALJ's conclusion that he can perform low stress work." Stress is a factor which must be considered on an individualized basis for performing a range of work at step 5. Vocational evidence that there are a significant number of jobs in the economy that would be "low stress" for the average worker falls short of the requirements of Ruling 85-15. ALJ must undertake subjective, individualized inquiry into what job attributes are likely to produce disabling stress in the claimant, and what, if any, jobs exist in the economy that do not possess these attributes. ALJ must make subjective, individualized inquiry into nature of and what triggers claimant's nonexertional limitations. ALJ erred by failing to make findings as to claimant's ability to perform basic mental work-related activities. Although the ALJ apparently relied upon claimant's even demeanor at the disability hearing as evidence of his ability generally to work at low-stress jobs, we consider a claimant's ability to visit doctors and describe his medical problems coherently as insufficient evidence of his ability to work. Hypothetical to vocational expert is inadequate because it failed to elicit from the vocational expert any testimony directed specifically to the conditions that are likely to produce stress in the claimant. The basic mental demands of competitive, remunerative, unskilled work include the abilities (on a sustained basis) to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; to respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations; and to deal with changes in a routine work setting. A substantial loss of ability to meet any of these basic work- related activities would severely limit the potential occupational base. This, in turn, would justify a finding of disability because even favorable age, education, or work experience will not offset such a severely limited occupational base." Social Security Ruling 85-15. The burden of showing the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform (Step 5) rests on the Secretary. Vocational evidence that there are a significant number of jobs in the economy that would be "low stress" for the average worker falls short of the requirements of Ruling 85-15. ALJ must undertake subjective, individualized inquiry into what job attributes are likely to produce disabling stress in the claimant, and what, if any, jobs exist in the economy that do not possess these attributes.

cert. denied 534 U.S. 1085 122 S.Ct. 822, 151 L.Ed.2d 704 (1/7/2002). Determination by Appeals Council that new evidence is not material is reviewable by Federal Court under Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403, 77 S.Ct. 1152 (1957) standard - i.e., decision is reviewable to extent that it rests on an explicit mistake of law or other egregious error. ALJ did not err in deciding the case at step 4 instead of step 5 because the result would have been the same. Court assumes that assembly line and motel laundress jobs, or substantially similar jobs, exist in the economy and that claimant is not disabled if she is capable of doing these jobs. Courts can remand for further proceedings where post-hearing evidence is new and material and there is good cause for failure to present it on a timely basis. Issue (whether claimant's sporadic prior employment should have been considered at Step 4) is waived if it is not raised at the ALJ hearing, at least where the Appeals Council refuses to review the ALJ's decision and it becomes a final decision. However, failure to raise an issue at the Appeal Council does not bar Federal Court review of the issue provided it was raised with ALJ (see Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103; 120 S. Ct. 2080; 147 L. Ed. 2d 80 (2000)). When the Appeals Court properly denies review of an ALJ's decision, the Federal Court may only look at the evidence presented to the ALJ unless there is good cause for failure to present evidence to ALJ.

At Step 5, SSA bears burden to come forward with evidence showing that there are jobs the claimant can do despite limitations. Since SSA is not represented as a litigant, it is better to think of Step 5 not as a shifting of burdens, but as a rule that the claimant is not under any obligation to produce evidence at Step 5. If an essential factual issue has not been resolved and there is no clear entitlement to benefits, the court must remand for further proceedings rather than order award of benefits. Court should order payment of benefits rather than remand only in the unusual case in which the underlying facts and law compel only one conclusion and SSA has no discretion to act in any way other than to pay benefits (i.e., where there is overwhelming proof of disability).

The burden of showing the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform (Step 5) rests on the Secretary. Cert. denied, 461 U.S. 958, 103 S.Ct. 2432, 77 L.Ed.2d 1318 (1983). Good explanation of purpose and use of the Grids. The Grids are based on a claimant's exertional capacity and can only be applied when claimant's non-exertional limitations do not significantly impair claimant's ability to perform at a given exertional level. At Step 4, the claimant bears the burden of showing that he cannot return to his previous work. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can nonetheless perform.