conditions hindered her from looking for employment, Claimant stated that migraines, pain in her neck and back, and diabetes prohibited her from working. See App. at 44. As such, the ALJ could reasonably assume that Claimant’s stated memory loss had “no bearing on the question of [her] alleged disability.” Chambers v. Barnhart, 389 F.3d 1139, 1144 (10th Cir.2004); see also Glass v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1392, 1396 (10th Cir.1994) (rejecting the notion that an ALJ’s duty of inquiry is “a panacea for claimants,” requiring “reversal in any matter where the ALJ fails to exhaust every potential line of questioning”). b. In any event, in the context of the entire record, Claimant failed to present evidence of a cognitive impairment that was substantial on its face. See Washington, 37 F.3d at 1439 (<HOLDING>). Claimant primarily points to the opinions of
holding that court reviews aljs decision for substantial evidence on the record as a whole including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made holding our court on appeal will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if this judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence upon the record as a whole and  this rule applies whether the evidence is direct or wholly circumstantial recognizing that sjubstantiality of evidence depends upon the record taken as a whole recognizing that a statute should be read as comprehensive whole recognizing that a court may reverse the pelrbs actions where those actions are arbitrary capricious or an abuse of discretion    not supported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole or otherwise not in accordance with law