With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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....” SSR 85-15, 1985 WL 56857 (S.S.A.), at *4. Before making a final determination according to the five step process outlined above, the ALJ is under an affirmative duty to adequately develop the medical record. See Tejada, 167 F.3d at 774; 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d). The ALJ is thus “obligated to explore the facts by obtaining relevant medical records and asking questions ... to assist the claimant in developing her case.” Jones v. Apfel, 66 F.Supp.2d 518, 538 (S.D.N.Y.1999); see also Perez, 77 F.3d at 47 (<HOLDING>). The ALJ’s duty to assist a claimant in

A: holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct 
B: holding it is error for an alj to fail to consider factors relevant to the pain analysis which are supported by the record
C: holding that the alj is not obliged to accept an iq if there is a substantial basis in the record for believing that the claimant was feigning the results
D: holding that where there are deficiencies in the record the alj is under an affirmative obligation to develop the relevant medical history even when the claimant is represented by counsel
D.