Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
loss of ability to meet any of these basic work-related activities would severely limit the potential occupational base. This, in turn, would justify a finding of disability.... SSR 85-15, 1985 WL 56857 (S.S.A.), at *4. In implementing the five-step sequential evaluation process outlined above, the ALJ is under an affirmative duty to adequately develop the medical record. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d) (stating that the SSA will make reasonable efforts to obtain a complete medical history from treating sources); see also Tejada, 167 F.3d at 774. The ALJ is thus “obligated to explore the facts by obtaining relevant medical records and asking questions ... to assist the claimant in developing her case.” Jones v. Apfel, 66 F.Supp.2d 518, 538 (S.D.N.Y.1999); see also Perez, 77 F.3d at 47 . This duty becomes even more paramount when,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify
B. holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct 
C. holding that an alj cannot discredit lay testimony solely because it is not supported by medical evidence in the record
D. holding it is error for an alj to fail to consider factors relevant to the pain analysis which are supported by the record
E. holding that where there are deficiencies in the record the alj is under an affirmative obligation to develop the relevant medical history
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.