Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04126/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04126-0/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. 04-4126

___________

Sam Dean, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED]

Company, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 21, 2005

Filed: October 28, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sam Dean appeals the district court’s1

 adverse judgment in his Employment

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action against Hartford Life & Accident

Insurance Company (Hartford). Dean’s long-term-disability (LTD) benefits were

discontinued in October 2002 after Hartford determined he no longer qualified. 

Appellate Case: 04-4126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2005 Entry ID: 1968556
-2-

This court reviews de novo the district court’s application of the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. See Norris v. Citibank, N.A. Disability Plan, 308 F.3d 880, 883-

84 (8th Cir. 2002) (under abuse-of-discretion standard, proper inquiry is whether

administrator’s decision was reasonable, i.e., supported by substantial evidence);

Cash v. Wal-Mart Group Health Plan, 107 F.3d 637, 641 (8th Cir. 1997) (review

under deferential standard is limited to evidence before administrator). 

We conclude that Hartford was not required to give controlling weight to Dr.

Thomas Bailey’s November 2001 opinion as to Dean’s work-related abilities: the

opinion was generated almost a year before the determination at issue was made; and

it was inconsistent with Dr. Bailey’s subsequent discussions with a Hartford medical

director, with an August 2002 functional capacity evaluation, with Dr. Bailey’s

treatment records, and with diagnostic test results. See Black & Decker Disability

Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 825, 834 (2003) (ERISA plan administrators are not

required to credit treating physician’s opinions over other evidence relevant to

claimant’s condition); McGee v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 921, 924-

25 (8th Cir. 2004) (it is not unreasonable to deny benefits based upon lack of

objective medical evidence). 

Dean’s challenges to the employability analysis also fail. As the district court

pointed out, under the language of the LTD benefit plan at issue here, Dean could

continue receiving benefits so long as he was prevented from doing “any” occupation

or work for which he could become qualified by training, education, or experience,

see Cash, 107 F.3d at 641 (in determining if interpretation of plan is reasonable, court

should consider whether, inter alia, interpretation is contrary to clear language of

plan); and in any event, Dean presented nothing supporting his assertion that the

specified jobs were not available locally, and Dean’s claim of right upper-extremity

problems was not supported by objective medical evidence and was inconsistent with

other evidence. 

Appellate Case: 04-4126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2005 Entry ID: 1968556
-3-

Dean has provided no other basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/28/2005 Entry ID: 1968556