I. DISCUSSION A. MRFC form Nation asserts the ALJ did not fully and fairly develop the record because Dr. Le-gum did not complete a MRFC form, and specifically asserts Dr. Legum did not address Nation’s ability to work full-time. Nation contends the only way to address this issue is for Dr. Legum to answer questions 7 and 11 of the MRFC form. The ALJ has an obligation to develop a full and fair record, even if the claimant is represented by counsel. Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). The ALJ is not required to seek additional independent expert medical testimony before making a disability determination if the record is sufficient and additional expert testimony is not necessary for an informed decision. Wilson v. Apfel, 179 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Holladay v. Bowen, 848 F.2d 1206, 1209-10
holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician 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 trial court properly excluded an expert who failed to arrive at his final opinion before the discovery cutoff date holding the record which included the opinion of several physicians was sufficient for the alj to arrive at a decision