more evidence, it provided insufficient guidance as to exactly what evidence she needed to support her claim. It stated merely that she should submit “[additional evidence or a further written statement as to the facts and/or law.” (A.R. at 75.) Moreover, the Appeals Council failed to first give the ALJ an opportunity to re-weigh the evidence in light of her previous credibility determination. (See A.R. at 74-76.) IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated, the court believes that Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, should have the opportunity to fully develop the record with the assistance of an administrative law judge so that a proper determination of her eligibility for widow’s benefits can be made. See Evangelista v. Secr’y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 139 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court recommends that the
holding an argument waived in part because the party failed to develop it in the district court holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate holding that the appropriate remedy on vacatur is to remand the case for further arbitration proceedings consistent with the cba holding that remand is appropriate in part where the court determines that further evidence is necessary to develop the facts of the case fully