Case ID: f-appx_487/html/0670-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donna SEAMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Basic and Voluntary Retirement Plan, Defendants.
    No. 10-1423-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 6, 2012.
    
      Jessica E. Phillips (Richard P. Bress, Lori Alvino McGill, Drew C. Ensign, Kat-ya Georgieva on the brie©, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Patrick W. Begos, Begos Horgan & Brown LLP, Westport, CT, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert D. Sack, originally a member of the panel sitting on October 25, 2012, recused himself from consideration of this case. The remaining members of this panel, who are in agreement, have decided this case. See 2d Cir. Local Rules, Internal Operating Procedure E(b).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the March 11, 2010 judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.

Donna Seaman appeals from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment to First Unum Life Insurance Company (“First Unum”) on Seaman’s claim for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. “In an ERISA action, we review the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on the administrative record de novo and apply the same legal standard as the district court.” Hobson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 574 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir.2009). “[WJhere, as here, written plan documents confer upon a plan administrator the discretionary authority to determine eligibility, we will not disturb the administrator’s ultimate conclusion unless it is ‘arbitrary and capricious.’” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We assume familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We have reviewed Seaman’s arguments carefully. While they are not without merit, Seaman has not presented evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that First Unum abused its discretion in determining that the mental illness limitation applied to her claim. Therefore, substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s careful and comprehensive Opinion and Order dated March 9, 2010, we AFFIRM the March 11, 2010 judgment of the District Court.