internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); Pereira v. Astrue, 279 F.R.D. 201, 206 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (“[T]he ALJ may not reject the treating physician’s conclusions based solely on inconsistency or lack of clear findings without first attempting to fill the gaps in the administrative record.”); Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 728 F.Supp.2d 297, 322 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (“Where the ALJ has failed to develop the record adequately, remand to the Commissioner for further development is appropriate.”) Accordingly, the Court finds that remand of this case to the ALJ is appropriate due to the ALJ’s failure to develop the record in compliance with the Appeal Council’s June 14, 2011 Remand Order. See Savino v. Astrue, Case No. 07-CV-4233 (DLI), 2009 WL 2045397, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F.Supp.2d
holding that a party waives remand on the basis of a procedural defect by filing a motion to remand more than thirty days after the case is removed holding that a remand order entered by a magistrate judge was beyond his statutory authority and concluding that review was proper because the court of appeals was not reviewing the merits of the remand order itself holding that remand was required on the basis that the alj ignored the remand order and disregarded the appeals councils explicit directives to use a ve to help determine whether the plaintiff could perform his past relevant work holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals