Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03630/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03630-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3630

___________

Katherine White, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Life Insurance Company of *

North America; Lockheed * [UNPUBLISHED]

Martin Corporation Long Term *

Disability Plan, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 24, 2010

Filed: June 1, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Katherine White appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

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

arising from the disposition of her claims for short-term-disability (STD) and longterm-disability (LTD) benefits. Upon de novo review, see Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of

Appellate Case: 09-3630 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2010 Entry ID: 3669702
-2-

N. Am., 597 F.3d 929, 934 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review), we find that summary

judgment was proper on the STD benefits decision, as the record showed that White

did not file a timely administrative appeal and thus did not exhaust her administrative

remedies, see Price v. Xerox Corp., 445 F.3d 1054, 1057 (8th Cir. 2006). As to the

denial of LTD benefits, we find no abuse of discretion. See Jackson v. Prudential Ins.

Co. of Am., 530 F.3d 696, 701 (8th Cir. 2008) (plan administrator’s decision should

not be disturbed when administrator offers reasonable explanation and decision is

supported by substantial evidence) White offered evidence showing that she was

diagnosed with, and received ongoing treatment for, interstitial cystitis and

fibromyalgia, but she failed to offer sufficient evidence that these conditions rendered

her disabled under the terms of her plan. See Darvell, 597 F.3d at 935 (it is not abuse

of discretion for administrator to ignore opinion when physician failed to provide

reliable objective evidence to support finding of LTD); Midgett v. Wash. Group Int’l

Long Term Disability Plan, 561 F.3d 887, 897 (8th Cir. 2009) (courts may not require

plan administrators automatically to give special weight to opinions of claimant’s

treating physicians); see also Rutledge v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 481

F.3d 655, 660-61 (8th Cir. 2007) (ERISA plan administrator is not bound by Social

Security Administration’s determination that plan participant is disabled even if plan

defines disability similarly). We decline to consider the arguments White raises for

the first time on appeal. See Cole v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric.

Implement Workers of Am., 533 F.3d 932, 936 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we

affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3630 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2010 Entry ID: 3669702