Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02775/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02775-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Karr
Appellant
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2775

___________

Craig Karr, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 2005

Filed: June 24, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Craig Karr appeals the district court’s1

 order upholding the denial of long-term

disability (LTD) benefits under an Employment Retirement Income Security Act

(ERISA) plan. Having conducted de novo review, see Norris v. Citibank, N.A.

Disability Plan, 308 F.3d 880, 884 (8th Cir. 2002), we affirm the district court’s

decision. 

Appellate Case: 04-2775 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2005 Entry ID: 1920048
-2-

Given the lack of objective medical evidence showing disabling heart or kidney

disease, and the relatively mild exertional requirements of Karr’s job, we conclude

that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s decision to deny LTD benefits is

supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 883-84 (under abuse-of-discretion

standard, proper inquiry is whether administrator’s decision was reasonable, i.e.,

supported by substantial evidence, which means relevant evidence that reasonable

mind might accept as sufficient to support conclusion); Coker v. Metropolitan Life

Ins. Co., 281 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2002) (if plan administrator’s discretionary

decision is supported by reasonable explanation, it should not be disturbed even if

another reasonable but differing interpretation of evidence could be made). 

We agree with appellees that Dr. Daniel Mazour’s October 2001 opinion as to

Karr’s ability to work is not entitled to deference. See Black & Decker Disability

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

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

medical condition). Contrary to Karr’s assertion, we find Dr. Mazour’s opinion

inconsistent with his treatment records and the objective medical tests. For example,

Karr only occasionally reported problems with leg pain and feet and ankle swelling;

Dr. Mazour found the results of blood tests indicative of stable kidney function, he

only occasionally assessed edema, and he noted Karr did well in cardiac

rehabilitation; and in connection with an office visit during the same month as the

opinion at issue, he noted that Karr only occasionally had leg pain and swelling and

had no significant chest pain. See 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). Thus, we agree with the district court that this

is not a case where the decision at issue is overwhelmed by contrary evidence, and

that Karr is relying solely on subjective medical opinions. See Coker, 281 F.3d at

799. Karr’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2775 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2005 Entry ID: 1920048