After carefully reviewing the briefs and record below, we affirm the Commissioner’s decision.

The appellant raises issues on appeal that either pertain only to the district court’s decision or were not argued before the district court. We will not consider such issues. Manso-Pizarro v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir.l996)(the decision will be upheld unless the Commissioner committed legal or factual error); Groves v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 1998) (district court error is irrelevant); Evangelista v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987) (argument not raised in district court is forfeited).

There was no inconsistency or error in the findings concerning the appellant’s ability to perform light work or the application of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (“Grid”). The ALJ found that the appellant retained the strength needed to perform light work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567. Although the appellant exhibited certain nonexertional limitations, since the ALJ found that the limitations did not significantly compromise his ability to perform the full range of light work, no vocational expert was required. Ortiz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 890 F.2d 520, 524-25 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam ).

The ALJ’s findings concerning the appellant’s pain and psychological status were supported by substantial evidence. There may have been some contrary evidence, but the record as a whole was adequate to support the findings. Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security, 211 F.3d 652, 655 (1st Cir. 2000); Rodriguez v. Sec *27 retary of Health and Human Services, 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir . 1981).

Affirmed. Loe. R. 27(c).