A doctor's conclusory reflections as to claimant's employability, unaccompanied by any formal opinion and diagnoses, do not constitute substantial evidence. Due to non-adversarial nature of proceedings, SSA's responsibility to develop the evidence increases where claimant is unrepresented, where the claim seems on its face to be substantial, where there are gaps in the evidence needed for a reasoned evaluation of the claim, and where it is in the power of the ALJ, without undue effort, to see that the gaps are somewhat filled.

Neither absence of treatment records from relevant time period and retrospective nature of treating doctor's opinion justify ALJ's finding that treating source's report was too speculative a basis for establishing a severe impairment. (remanding for ALJ to obtain retrospective opinions regarding claimant's mental condition in relevant period). Because of plaintiff's readily apparent mental disorder and fact that the ALJ noticed the possibility that the disorder might be related to an event occurring prior to the date last insured., ALJ had duty to develop the record of the etiology of the illness, its course, and its severity. Fairness dictates that when a claimant obviously suffering from a severe mental disorder appears at a social security proceeding without counsel, the ALJ undertake to protect his interests at the hearing. ALJ's failure to develop evidence is good cause for remand. Claimant had burden of establishing by credible evidence that his mental impairment was of a disabling level of severity as of date last insured. It is not sufficient for him to establish that his mental impairment had its roots prior to that date.

Inadequacy of representation, noted by court, doesn't warrant reversal of non-disability decision, but court suggests claimant get a new lawyer and attempt reopening. cert. denied 474 U.S. 844 88 L.Ed.2d 109, 106 S.Ct. 133 (1985); rehearing denied 474 U.S. 1097, 88 L.Ed.2d 911, 106 S.Ct. 872 (1986).

Fact that claimant was not supplied with counsel at government expense did not prejudice his claim, since the record, which shows that the examiner was exceptionally solicitous and helpful, and that the claimant was fairly treated, does not suggest that having counsel would have resulted in the presentation of a better case.

ALJ adequately developed record for pro se claimant. ALJ used correct standard for assessing severity.