Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): diagnoses were indicated and that Plaintiff’s medical records “continue[d] to support from a psych standpoint” only. (AR 254.) However, the record is inadequate to support MetLife’s rejection of a comorbid diagnosis in favor of finding Plaintiff was disabled solely due to her bipolar disorder that was in partial remission at the time she was diagnosed as having dementia. The Court finds Dr. Stallings’ opinions, based on an eight-year treating relationship with Plaintiff and his consideration of Dr. Whitehurst and Dr. Carstens’s reports, the MRI results, and repeated neuropsychological testing results to be far more reliable than the opinions of Met-Life’s three IPC’s whose opinions were each based on a single file review. See Oliver v. Coca Cola Co., 497 F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Continental Cas. Co., 450 F.3d 253, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious (B) holding that defendants denial of employees claim for failure to provide objective evidence was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on a mischaracterization of the evidence employee submitted (C) holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability (D) holding that court may set aside lsc decisions that are arbitrary and capricious or are not based on substantial evidence (E) holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts
Output (English): holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts