until her date last insured, nor did it mention how frequently Claimant’s MS symptoms arise. (Id.) The fact that the ALJ indicated it was “difficult to determine the exact period of time covered by Dr. Russell’s opinion” reveals the presence of an ambiguity that the ALJ was required to resolve. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e)(1) (2010). The time-frame the letter covers is especially important, as the record shows Claimant suffered a serious, five week long MS flare-up from February to March 2006 — mere weeks before her insured status lapsed. (R. at 14, 18); SSR 96-2p. Likewise, the ALJ made no effort to recontact Dr. TothRussell to explain the ambiguity surrounding the frequency and severity of Claimant’s MS flare-ups. (R. at 20); see Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Had the ALJ done so, Dr. Toth-Russell could
holding that a domestic plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to more deference than a foreign plaintiffs holding that because the alj did not have the plaintiffs entire prior record he could not have constructively reopened the prior applications holding that a plaintiffs belief that a product could fail in the future is not without more a legal injury sufficient to support plaintiffs claim holding that plaintiffs are not required  to have asked for the precise form of relief that the district court may ultimately grant holding that the alj should have contacted the plaintiffs doctor and asked for more detail regarding the fre quency of plaintiffs seizures