mental evidence set forth at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(C). The § 12.00(C) criteria are appropriate for analyzing depression under fisting § 12.04 and mental retardation under § 12.05(D). But the ALJ did not, however, recognize that the criteria for analyzing mental retardation under § 12.05(C) are different from those for depression or mental retardation under § 12.05(D). See Aplt.App., tab 4 at 32, 37-38; 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(A). Thus, it appears that the ALJ did not consider § 12.05(C) when he considered whether Mr. Smith met the listings. The ALJ’s failure to specifically address fisting § 12.05(C) is, under the facts of this case, reversible error, because we cannot engage in meaningful judicial review. Cf. Clifton, 79 F.3d at 1009 (<HOLDING>); see also Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211,
holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion and thus the aljs unexplained conclusion was beyond meaningful review holding it is impossible to apply the substantial evidence test where the alj has failed to sufficiently explain his decision 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 holding that where alj does not discuss reasons for deciding claimant is not disabled at step three or even identify relevant listings and only summarily concludes claimants impairments did not meet or equal listing meaningful judicial review of conclusion is impossible holding the alj does not have to specifically refer to every piece of evidence so long as the decision is not a broad rejection that is insufficient to permit a court to conclude that the alj considered the claimants medical condition as a whole