Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03648/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03648-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3648

___________

Karen R. Rosby, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Unum Life Insurance Company of *

America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 13, 2010

 Filed: August 24, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Karen Rosby appeals the district court’s1

 affirmance of Unum Life Insurance

Company of America’s (Unum’s) termination of long-term disability benefits in this

action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

After careful de novo review of the record, we conclude that Unum, the

administrator of Rosby’s employer-based disability plan, did not abuse its discretion

Appellate Case: 09-3648 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696419
-2-

in terminating Rosby’s disability benefits because its decision was supported by

substantial evidence that Rosby could perform the material and substantial duties of

her job, as detailed in the district court’s opinion. See Norris v. Citibank, N.A.

Disability Plan (501), 308 F.3d 880, 883-84 (8th Cir. 2002) (appellate standard of

review and applicable standard for reviewing plan administrator’s decision under

ERISA). We also decline to remand based on a Social Security Administration

decision that was not part of the administrative record or binding on Unum, see

Wakkinen v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 531 F.3d 575, 583 (8th Cir. 2008) (examining only

evidence before plan administrator when benefits decision was made); Rutledge v.

Liberty Life Assurance Co., 481 F.3d 655, 660-61 (8th Cir. 2007) (ERISA plan

administrator not bound by Social Security Administration decision), or based on

Rosby’s dissatisfaction with counsel’s assistance, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d

536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of

counsel in civil case).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3648 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696419