Opinion ID: 4528629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Complete Record of Evidence

Text: Appellant argues that the ALJ failed to consider all the medical evidence of record. Appellant’s brief states that “[w]e also argue that the ALJ failed to give appropriate weight and consideration of this substantial evidence of record regarding her asthma, headaches, depression, arthritis, right shoulder pain, irregular heartbeat and deep vein thrombosis, all of which, in combination, led to her unfortunate death on May 4, 2016.” Appellant’s Br. 11. This conclusory statement, with no factual support, lacks merit. Although Appellant provides several cites to the record in support of this claim, none of the record cites reference evidence the ALJ overlooked. Specifically, Appellant states that “substantial medical evidence of record indicates that [Claimant] has a long treatment history of asthma. Tr., pp. [sic] 1-6; 33-37; 288-328; 342-532.” Appellant’s Br. 11. However, the record cites do not support Appellant’s assertion. Pages 1-6 include the notice of action of the Appeals Council, the order of the Appeals Council, and an exhibit list. None of these documents include medical records. Pages 33-37 are part 11 of the ALJ’s decision. Pages 288-328 include records from Claimant’s emergency room treatment on December 29, 2013, the results of the spirometry test, and invoices for reproduction of medical records. The ALJ discussed these medical records. Finally, pages 342-532 reference almost 200 pages of medical reports, without any indication as to which specific page or report Appellant would have us review. As we have previously stated, “[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.” Doeblers’ Pa. Hybrids, Inc. v. Doebler, 442 F.3d 812, 820 n.8 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Albrechtsen v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 436 (7th Cir. 2002)). Lacking any direction from Appellant as to the specific reports at issue, we will not scour the record to attempt to discern Appellant’s position. There does not appear to be any evidence that the ALJ failed to consider. Therefore, we reject Appellant’s overarching contention that the ALJ failed to consider all the medical evidence of record.