Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01051/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01051-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1051

___________

Jack D. Rhoads, II, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

Kansas City Life Insurance * District of Missouri. 

Company, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 2008

Filed: July 14, 2008

___________

Before MELLOY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jack D. Rhoads, II, appeals from the district court's1

 grant of summary judgment

against him in his suit against Kansas City Life Insurance Company in which he

claimed to be disabled because of a visual condition involving posterior vitreous of

the retina, commonly known as "floaters," in both eyes. See ERISA, 29 U.S.C.

§ 1132(a)(1)(B). After initially approving his claim, KCLIC, the administrator for

Mr. Rhoads's benefits plan, determined that Mr. Rhoads was in fact not disabled. This

Appellate Case: 08-1051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2008 Entry ID: 3451287
-2-

decision found ample support in the reports of two ophthalmologists and an

optometrist who concluded that Mr. Rhoads was able to perform the material and

substantial duties of his occupation.

Mr. Rhoads's appeal relies heavily on a later report by Mr. Rhoads's treating

ophthalmologist that a job modification would enable him to work with his

impediment. But Mr. Rhoads reads too much into the statement. His ophthalmologist

never revised her previous opinion that he was not disabled; and KCLIC quite

reasonably took her statement to mean that Mr. Rhoads's job might be easier for him

if it was changed, not that he was unable to do the job. After a de novo consideration

of the record, see Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989),

we agree with this conclusion and thus affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-1051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2008 Entry ID: 3451287