Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02365/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02365-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick J. Powers
Appellant
Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2365

___________

Patrick J. Powers, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

UNUM Life Insurance Company of *

America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2008

Filed: May 14, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Patrick J. Powers appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his summary

judgment motion and dismissing his Employment Retirement Income Security Act

lawsuit against UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (UNUM) arising from

the denial of continued short-term-disability benefits. Under the abuse-of-discretion

standard, which the parties agree applied below, UNUM’s decision needed only to be

reasonable, that is, supported by substantial evidence. See Dillard’s Inc. v. Liberty

Appellate Case: 07-2365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2008 Entry ID: 3434013
-2-

Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 456 F.3d 894, 899 (8th Cir. 2006) (plan administrator’s

decision will be reversed only if it was arbitrary and capricious); Norris v. Citibank,

N.A. Disability Plan (501), 308 F.3d 880, 883-84 (8th Cir. 2002) (reviewing de novo

district court’s application of abuse-of-discretion standard). 

We agree with the district court that the decision to deny Powers benefits as of

January 11, 2004, was supported by substantial evidence. As of that date Powers did

not meet the second prong of the plan’s definition of disabled, i.e., that he was “not

working in any occupation.” Given the plan’s plain and unambiguous definition of

disability, it is irrelevant why Powers returned to work at a lower-paying position for

another employer. We also agree with the district court that the term “gainful

occupation” is not relevant because it does not appear in the section of the plan

addressing short-term disability, and that the recurrent-disability provision does not

apply in these circumstances. Finally, Powers’s remaining arguments (raised for the

first time on appeal) are unavailing. 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2008 Entry ID: 3434013