dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
I would have no objection if the position of the majority was that the case should be remanded to the Secretary for more explicit findings of fact addressing the requirements of Listing § 12.02. The majority, focusing attention upon the testimony of the mother, concludes that all the requirements of that Listing were met, but I cannot agree that a conflicting inference from the entire record was impermissible.
Dr. Dy and Dr. Wagaman each found that Lewis was alert and coherent. Dr. Dy found that Lewis was oriented, with clear and fluent speech. Dr. Wagaman found him cooperative, and both physicians found him responsive. Dr. Wagaman noted those things that interested Lewis and filled his daily life as reported by Lewis to the physician, and those interests appeared to be substantially those things that interested Lewis before he suffered any problem with his arteries. Finally, the vocational expert, after an examination of the medical reports, concluded that Lewis was capable of numerous light or sedentary jobs not requiring sustained manipulative use of the right hand.
There is no doubt that Lewis suffered a substantial decline in his intelligence quotient or that there is substantial loss of strength and dexterity in the use of his right arm and hand. He can go to the pool hall, but he cannot play pool as he once did.
Listing § 12.02B requires:
B. Resulting persistence of marked restriction of daily activities and constric*818tion of interests and deterioration in personal habits and seriously impaired ability to relate to other people.
Based upon the mother’s testimony, a fact finder might find all of those things to be present. They are not apparent in the reports of the examining physicians. Indeed, those reports present a very different picture with no substantial constriction of interests and no impaired ability to relate to other people. On the contrary, they found him cooperative and responsive, qualities not ordinarily to be found in persons with “seriously impaired ability to relate to other people.”
The fact finding responsibility is not committed to appellate judges such as we. It is committed to the Secretary. Since the majority, at best, establishes no more than a conflict in the testimony, I must respectfully dissent.