With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the reports of the non-examining physicians. See Swindle, 914 F.2d at 226 n. 3 (explaining that the opinion of a non-examining physician “is entitled to little weight and taken alone does not constitute substantial evidence to support an administrative decision.”). Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence. This alone requires that the ALJ’s decision be reversed. Furthermore, because Dr. Reddy’s finding is ambiguous as to whether he was referring to all work at any exertional-level or only her past work, the case should be remanded to allow the ALJ to seek clarification from Dr. Reddy to resolve this uncertainty. See Rivers v. Colvin, No. 2:12-CV-00792-VEH, (Doc. 10 at 10-13), 2013 WL 3992507 (N.D.Ala. Aug. 2, 2013) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Based upon the court’s evaluation

A: holding contract with ambiguous terms should not be dismissed on pleadings
B: holding that the case should be remanded so that the alj could resolve an ambiguous statement in the consultative examiners report
C: holding that appellants statement i think i need a lawyer     is just as ambiguous as the statement made by the defendant in davis
D: holding that parol evidence is admissible to resolve a contractual term that is ambiguous
B.