Pain can constitute a significant nonexertional impairment which precludes naked application of the Grid and requires use of a vocational expert. The medical-vocational guidelines are not dispositive of the status of persons whose exertional limitations are further complicated by other non-exertional ailments. The Secretary must engage in an "individualized analysis" to determine whether the combination of exertional and nonexertional impairments, in light of the claimant's age, education, and work experience, renders her disabled. Conflicts in the evidence are for the Secretary to resolve. Court suggests Secretary present "more specific expert evidence concerning [the claimant's] ability to function in the workplace, coupled with a vocational expert's testimony as to the availability of jobs in the national economy which someone possessing claimant's ... limitations might fill." Secretary not obliged to take claimant's assertions of disabling pain at face value.

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.

Remand for taking of further VE testimony in regard to perceptual dysfunction (person with one eye).