In his decision, the ALJ detailed a number of medical reports, and then stated: Every exhibit was reviewed carefully for preparation of this decision, however, exhibits not cited were omitted for various reasons, including, but not limited to the following: relate to a time not covered by the claim, illegibility, duplicity, different physicians reporting the same diagnoses, physician duplication of hospitalization records, failure to state a diagnosis, statement of the claimant’s complaints without a diagnosis, prescription of medication only, etc. R. I at 18. This type of boilerplate language is improper. The ALJ is charged with carefully considering all the relevant evidence and linking his findings to specific evidence. See Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d at 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). When an ALJ decides to disregard a medical
holding the alj does not have to specifically refer to every piece of evidence so long as the decision is not a broad rejection that is insufficient to permit a court to conclude that the alj considered the claimants medical condition as a whole holding the alj is not required to address every piece of evidence but he must articulate some legitimate reason for his decision holding the record must demonstrate that the alj considered all of the evidence and the alj must discuss  the evidence supporting his decision  the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon and significantly probative evidence he rejects holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence