note that said that her “condition caused her absence from 10/13/03 until [no date specified!.” Aplt. App. at 323. Under “Limitations/Restrictions” the note said "[s]till under our care no return day yet.” Id. 5 . This form contains at least two different sets of handwriting and the line requesting the "Health Professionals Signature” is blank. Aplt. App. at 324. 6 . In her opening brief, Ms. Flanagan states one issue as whether a de novo or arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies to the review of MetLife's decision. It does not appear from the record that this issue was raised in the district court, and in any event, it is not developed in her brief. Therefore, we will not consider it on appeal. See Am. Airlines v. Christensen, 967 F.2d 410, 415 n. 8 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d
holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient holding that an appellate brief is deficient per the missouri rules of court where it fails to cite authority for an argument or fails to specify why such a citation is unavailable holding that conclusory allegation of patent invalidity is insufficient and noting that there are at least seven reasons why a patent might be invalid holding that stating that the court erred without advancing reasons why is insufficient appellate argument