Nelda Carter appeals from an order of the district court affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying her disability and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. 1 Ms. Carter filed for disability insurance benefits on July 11, 1990, and for SSI on November 14, 1990, alleging disability due to paroxysmal atrial tachycardia, a chronic peptic ulcer, gastrointestinal pain, and weakness in her left arm. Her requests were denied initially and on reconsideration. Following a de novo hearing on March 4, 1991, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Ms. Carter was not disabled within the meaning of the Sociаl Security Act and denied benefits. The Appeals Council denied Ms. Carter’s request for review and she filed suit in district court. A United States Magistrate Judgе affirmed the ALJ’s decision, and Ms. Carter appealed to this court.
The Secretary has established a five-step evaluation prоcess pursuant to the Social Security Act for determining whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act.
See Williams v. Bowen,
Ms. Carter argues that the ALJ failed to advise her adequately of her right to counsel. The record reveals, however, that the ALJ did advisе Ms. Carter of her right to counsel prior to the hearing, and that she waived that right. Appellant’s App., Vol. I at 16. The notice of hearing, notice of denial, and notice of reconsideration sent to Ms. Carter also advised her of her right to representation.
Id.
at 15, 29, 76. While the customary and better practice would seem to be to place .both the advisement and the waiver on the record during the hearing, neither the pertinent statute,
see
42 U.S.C. § 406(c), nor the regulations,
see
20 C.F.R. § 404.1706, nor our previous cases require any more advisement than was given in this ease.
See Garcia v. Califano,
Ms. Carter further argues that thе ALJ failed to develop fully the record. We agree. “Although a claimant has the burden of providing medical evidence proving disability, the ALJ has a basic duty of inquiry to fully and fairly develop the record as to material issues.”
Baca v. Department of Health & Human Servs.,
Although her applications did not mention depression, the evidence Ms. Carter submitted to the ALJ included an evaluation by Dr. Baum, performed December 6,1989, in which he diagnosed her as suffering from “depression and associated neuropsychiatric symp *1022 toms.” Appellant’s App., Vol. I at 209. 2 The ALJ acknowledged in his decision that Ms. Carter had alleged a “disabling psychiatric condition” of depression. Id. at 23. He rejected Dr. Baum’s diagnosis, however, because it was “unsupported by any testing or even a clinical interview....” Id.
The existence of Dr. Baum’s diagnоsis required the ALJ to develop the record concerning depression.
Hill v. Sullivan,
An ALJ has the duty to develop the record by obtaining pertinent, available medical records which come to his attention during the course of the hearing.
See generally
20 C.F.R. § 404.944;
Baker v. Bowen,
Ms. Carter also asserts that the Secretary’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence. We review the Secretary’s decision to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidеnce in the record viewed as a whole and whether the correct legal standards were applied.
Andrade v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,
There is substantiаl evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s findings that the effect of Ms. Carter’s alleged paroxysmal atrial tachycardia, her peptic ulcer and the weakness or numbing in her arm, standing alone, did not render her disabled. On remand, however, after further development оf the record, the ALJ should give consideration to whether Ms. Carter suffers from an affective disorder, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.04, or a nonex-еrtional mental impairment. Ms. Carter’s mental impairments, if any, must be evaluated in combination with her physical impairments.
See Hargis v. Sullivan,
The judgmеnt of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this order аnd judgment.
Notes
. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a deсision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(f) and 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
. Dr. Baum’s evaluation notes psychiatric symptoms, including "[difficulty concentrating, difficulty sleeping, fatigue and lack of energy, depression, anger, crying spells, loss of appetite, difficulty with work, anxiety, and nervousness.” Appellant’s App., Vol. I at 206.
. On appeal, Ms. Carter presents us with records from Dr. Foley's сonsultations with her in 1989. The records show that he indeed performed psychological tests on her, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), and that the test results indicated depression. Appellant’s App., Vol. Ill at 13. Although Ms. Carter raised the issue of failure to develop the record before the district court, she did not present Dr. Foley's records to the agency or to that court. Normally, we do not consider evidence presented for the first time on appeal.
See Selman v. Califano,