Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01730/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01730-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1730

___________

Richard E. Walden, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Eaton Corporation, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 3, 2006

Filed: March 8, 2006 

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard E. Walden appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit

against his former employer, the Eaton Corporation (Eaton), brought after his longterm disability (LTD) benefits were discontinued. We conclude that the district court

properly applied an abuse-of-discretion standard of review, and that the grant of

summary judgment was proper. See Torres v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 405 F.3d

670, 677 (8th Cir. 2005) (reviewing de novo adverse grant of summary judgment and

Appellate Case: 05-1730 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018278
2

Under the plan provision at issue, an employee is entitled to continued LTD

benefits if he is “totally and continuously unable to engage in any occupation or to

perform any work for compensation or profit for which” he is, or might become,

“reasonably well fitted by reason of education, training, or experience.” 

-2-

district court’s determination of appropriate standard of review in ERISA case

involving denial of benefits). 

Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we must affirm if a reasonable person

could have reached a similar decision, given the evidence before him. See Wise v.

Kind & Knox Gelatin, Inc., 429 F.3d 1188, 1190 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonable decision

is one based on substantial evidence). We conclude that Eaton justifiably relied on

Walden’s tax records and a denial letter from the Social Security Administration

(SSA) as proof of Walden’s work activities, as these documents reflected Walden’s

own reports of material participation in the management of an automobile dealership

and thus his ability to perform work for compensation.2

 Cf. Riedl v. Gen. Am. Life

Ins. Co., 248 F.3d 753, 759 n.4 (8th Cir. 2001) (SSA’s determination is not binding

but it is admissible evidence to support ERISA claim for LTD). Thus, the decision

to discontinue the LTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence. See Wise,

429 F.3d at 1190 (it is not necessary to show that reasonable person would have

reached decision, only that he could have; courts should hesitate to interfere with

ERISA plan administration). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

denial of Walden’s discovery requests. See Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470,

477 (8th Cir. 2005) (review of district court’s discovery rulings is narrow and

deferential). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1730 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018278