F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT February2, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1363 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00403 -CV -T -24-TB M RE BE CCAPO RT ER , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us PROVIDENT LIFE AND A CCIDENT INSURANCE COM PANY, D ef en dant, SMI THKLINE BEE CHAM COR PORATION, d/b/a GlaxoSm ithKline, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 2, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , P RY O R and R O N E Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Plaintiff Re becca P orter appeals the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t t o de fe ndant S m ith K lin e Be ec ham Co rp or at ion , d/b /aG la xoS m ith K lin e (G SK), her for

m er e m ploy er, in her case brough t pursuant to the Em ploy ee Re tir em en t I nc om e Se curi ty A ct of 197 4 ( E RI SA ), 29 U
. S. C. § 10 01 et seq . Porter al le ge d th at

on M ay 31, 200 1, he r lon g te rm

dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts w er e im

pr ope rl y te rminate d, de spi te 199 7 m ed ic al dia gnos es of f ibr om y al gia , a sth m a, and de pr es sio n, a ft er

de fe ndant h ad

gathe re d c onf

lic tin g m ed ic al e xam inatio n i n fo rmat i o nab o u tth e e x t en to f h erm ed i ca l co n d i t i o n . Af t erth e d en i al o f P o rt er ’s fourth internal appeal, def endant offered to suspend a final determ ination as to her lon g te rm dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts i f Po rt er

w as w ill ing to submit to an in de pe nde nt
m edical evaluation, offe ring to reinstate long term benefits if the findings o f such an evaluation supported her claim that she was totally

disabled. Porter

twice
re fu se d to sub m it to an in de pe nde nt e va luatio n. O n O ct obe r 22, 200 3, de fe ndant de nie d P orte r’ s f

if th a ppe al , r ea soni ng tha t he r fa ilure to submit to an in de pe nde nt
m ed ic al e va luatio n w as af ai lur e to c om

ply w ithhe r obl igatio ns unde r the lon g term plan and establish es a newj ustification for disabi lity benefits. W e af

firm ba se d onthe r ea sons se t f orth i n th e de ta ile d and w el l- re as one d or de r of the dis tr ic t c ourt.3

T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by f ind ing that de fe ndant h ad the auth or ity

to
m ak e a fi na l de te rm inatio n a s to the de nia l of pla int if f’ s lo ng t er

m be ne fi ts d

ue to he r re fu sa l t o su

bm it to an in de pe nde nt m ed ic al e va luatio n duri ng the pe nde nc y of the appe al s pr oc es s. A lth oughhe r lon g te rm be ne fi ts w er e ini tia lly

sus pe nde d du e to c onf lic tin g e vid en ce gathe re d by de fe ndant a s to w he the r she w as not tot al ly disabled un der the term s of the plan, her subs equent refusal to subm it to an ind ep en de nt m ed ic al e va luatio n duri ng the pe nde nc y of the appe al s pr oc es s
co nst itute d an in de pe nde nt g ro und fo r de nia l of lon g te rm

be ne fi ts. T he plan, w hic h st at es that de fe ndant h as the absol ute r igh t “ to m ak e al l de te rminatio ns o f fa ct

and e lig ibi lity

f or be ne fi ts, ” expli ci tly

state s, “ If

y ou d o no t submit to a

ti m el y ind ep en de nt m ed ic al e xam inatio n or if y ou d o no t pr ovi de tim el y and s at isf

ac tor y pr oof of c ont inu ed

dis ab ili ty , y our

be ne fi ts w ill be susp ended.” G iven this clear language, which required proof of a “ continu ed disabili ty ,” the district court did no t err in hol ding that defendant’ s request for an ind ep en de nt m ed ic al e va luatio n w as not “ w ro ng” und er

the plan and, e ve n if

“ wr o n g ,” wa s re as o n ab l e g i v en th e f ac tu al ci rc u m s t an ce s , wh er e d ef en d an t ’s reasons to term inate her long term benefits conflicted with her prof fere d evidence
co nc ern in g h er as se rte d d is ab il it y . See W illiams v. B ellSouth Telecom m. , I nc. , 373 F. 3d 11 32, 1138– 39 (11th Cir. 2004 ) (e xplaini ng that even if a plan4

adm ini str at or ’ s de ci sio n un de r a plan is “ w ro ng, ” a re vie w ing c ourt m ust sti ll upho ld if reasonable grounds s uppo rt it). T he r ec or d do es not

sup port pl ai nti ff

’ s arg um en t tha t the plan a dm ini str at or

“ au t o m at i ca l l y” g av e “bl i n dad h er en ce ” t o a n o n -t re at i n g m ed i ca l d i re ct o r’s opin ion withou t regard to other m edical opinio ns, through what Porter c alls an im proper “ anti-phy sician rule.” T he rec ord evidence wa s not th at the plan adm ini str at or

bli ndl y a dhe re d to the r ev ie w er ’ s de ci sio n to de ny lon g te rm

be ne fi ts due to a lack of disabilitybut ins tead gave cre dence to his recom m endation th at she subm it to an ind ependent m edical evaluation to assis t in resolvin g the conflict be twee n d efen da nt ’s andpl ai nt iff’s m ed ic al ex pe rts as t o h er m ed ic al co nd it io n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndant i s AFFIR MED.