in Supp. of Commissioner’s Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 15). Absent a valid explanation as to why the Appeals Council failed to seek out the clinical or diagnostic findings it required, such as Dr. Camille’s known inability or unwillingness to “provide certain tests or procedures,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(f), the court is not satisfied that the Commissioner has fulfilled his affirmative obligation under the Social Security regulations and Second Circuit jurisprudence. Because the Commissioner did not discharge his affirmative duty to fully develop the administrative record with regard to Richardson’s mental impairments and failed to give a valid reason for not doing so, the court finds that the Commissioner committed legal error. See also Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). III. Use of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines
holding that where there are deficiencies in the record the alj is under an affirmative obligation to develop the relevant medical history holding that a treating physicians opinion may be rejected if it is brief conclusory and unsupported by medical evidence holding that where the alj had already  obtained and considered reports from treating physicians the alj had before him a complete medical history and the evidence received from the treating physicians was adequate for him to make a determination as to disability holding that the commissioner must determine a claimants rfc based on all of the relevant evidence including medical records observations of treating physicians and others and an individuals own description of the limitations holding that commissioner committed legal error by foregoing opportunities to develop claimants medical history and by rejecting treating physicians medical assessment without fully developing factual record