NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 

File Name: 17a0174n.06 

 Case No. 16-2028 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

LES A. GILEWSKI, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________________________/

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN 

Before: MERRITT, COOK, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. 

 MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Les Gilewski brought a declaratory judgment 

action against defendant Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company pursuant to the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), alleging wrongful 

termination of long-term disability benefits and seeking reinstatement of those benefits. 

Gilewski suffered from depression and, at the age of 41, applied for benefits under two long-term 

disability policies he held with Provident. Provident paid benefits under one policy for the twoyear duration of its term and those benefits are not at issue in this appeal. Provident also paid 

benefits under the second policy, but, after four years, it terminated the benefits after it 

determined that Gilewski was “able to perform the duties of his occupation” and was no longer 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 2 - 

disabled under the terms of the policy. After exhausting Provident’s administrative appeals, 

Gilewski brought this action against Provident. The district court granted judgment on the 

administrative record to Provident. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

I. FACTS AND HISTORY 

Gilewski, born in 1968, was the owner and president of Radiance Mold and Engineering, 

Inc., an auto supplier in Michigan, for 20 years. At one time the business employed as many as 

100 people. In 2001, Gilweski’s son was born with cerebral palsy, putting a strain on his family 

and work life. Gilewski also started experiencing marital difficulties that year. By the mid2000s, Gilewski was losing customers and sales personnel due to his personal struggles. 

Gilewski’s business experienced further downturn during the recession that began in 2008, and 

the business was put into bankruptcy and liquidated in the spring of 2009. Gilewski began 

experiencing depression, culminating in his hospitalization for one week in June 2009 when he 

became suicidal. Gilewski left the hospital under the care of Dr. Dan Guyer, who prescribed 

medications for Gilewski. Gilewski was also under the care of a psychologist, Dr. Fred Roberts, 

with whom he had weekly therapy sessions. Gilewski’s doctors determined he could not work, 

and he filed for long-term disability pursuant to two disability insurance policies he had 

previously purchased from Provident, citing his medical condition as anxiety and depression. 

When he applied for benefits, Gilewski included a statement from his treating psychiatrist, 

Dr. Guyer, which stated that Gilewski suffered from major depression and was unable to work. 

Dr. Guyer further noted that he expected to see improvement in six to twelve months. Provident 

began paying benefits effective June 2009 and continued until July 2013 when Provident 

determined that Gilewski was able to return to his previous occupation. 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 3 - 

The first policy, which provided 24 months of disability benefits, is not at issue in this 

case. The second policy requires Provident to pay monthly benefits to a participant who satisfies 

various conditions, including being disabled within the meaning of the term as defined by the 

policy. The policy states: 

Disability, or disabled, means that, due solely to Injuries or Sickness: 

1. you have a Loss of Time or Duties in your occupation; and 

2. you have a Loss of Earnings of at least 20%. 

. . . 

Loss of Time or Duties means that: 

1. you are not able to perform one or more of the substantial and material duties 

of your occupation; or 

2. you are not able to perform the substantial and material duties of your 

occupation for as much time as you regularly performed them before you became 

disabled. 

. . . 

Your occupation means the occupation . . . in which you are regularly engaged at 

the time you become disabled. 

Policy at 5-7 (emphasis omitted). 

2009-2011

Provident paid Gilewski all available benefits under the first policy. Provident initially 

denied Gilewski’s claim under the second policy because it determined that Gilewski had 

negative earnings during the years preceding his disability onset date and therefore had not 

sustained a 20-percent earnings loss as required under the policy. Provident later reconsidered 

that determination, however, and paid all past due benefits. That dispute was resolved and is not 

at issue in this appeal. 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 4 - 

Provident received periodic updates from Gilewski’s treating health-care professionals. 

On January 5, 2010, Gilewski’s treating psychologist, Dr. Roberts, submitted documentation to 

Provident noting that Gilewski’s depression had been severe in June 2009, but had improved to 

moderate by October 2009. Dr. Roberts estimated that it was likely Gilewski would be ready to 

work at least part-time by June 2010. In June 2011, Dr. Roberts submitted another report stating 

that Gilewski was less depressed and feeling more hopeful about the future, but noting that it 

would continue to be too stressful for Gilewski to run a large company. 

2011-2013 

In November 2010, Gilewski underwent a forensic psychiatric examination as part of his 

bankruptcy proceeding. He was examined by Dr. Gerald Shiener, a board certified psychiatrist. 

Dr. Shiener diagnosed Gilewski with “Major depression, recurrent and chronic,” and concluded 

that Gilewski’s “current condition is incompatible with any sort of competitive employment.” 

Because Dr. Shiener was not one of Gilewski’s regular treating physicians at this time, his initial 

report was not sent to Provident at the time it was created. Gilewski, however, began to see Dr. 

Shiener monthly after November 2010. Dr. Shiener began providing regular attending physician 

statements to Provident in June 2011. However, the statements were simply photocopies of 

previous statements with only the date changed, noting Gilewski’s diagnosis of “major 

depression,” stating that he cannot work and that it “cannot [be] determined” when he will be 

able to return to work. Gilewski stopped seeing Dr. Roberts in May 2011 and it appears that Dr. 

Shiener became Gilewski’s sole treating physician for his depressive disorder. Dr. Robert’s last 

treatment note, dated May 12, 2011, indicated that Gilewski was noticing “more energy” and 

“was better able to think clearly” after a change in his medications. 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 5 - 

In early 2012, Provident began requesting further documentation from Dr. Shiener about 

Gilewski’s current condition and prognosis. Dr. Shiener had been Gilewski’s treating physician 

for a year, and he had provided Provident only with photocopies of the same attending physician 

statement with the date changed each month. Provident sent a letter to Dr. Shiener on June 21, 

2012, stating that it had sent him four previous requests for “additional information.” On June 

18, 2012, Dr. Shiener responded with a letter stating that it was his policy not to release the 

requested records because disclosure of sensitive personal information limits a patient’s ability to 

participate in treatment. Dr. Shiener enclosed a copy of the narrative report he had sent to 

Gilewski’s attorney on November 11, 2010, when he first examined Gilewski, and he said that 

Gilewski’s condition “although stable is unimproved” and stated that Gilewski had “made an 

attempt to withdraw from antidepressant medication which led to a significant setback and 

reemergence of his depressive symptomatology.” 

On December 6, 2012, Provident sent a letter to Dr. Shiener requesting that, in light of his 

policy regarding the release of medical records, he provide the following: (1) a list of the dates 

he treated Gilewski; (2) Gilewksi’s Global Assessment of Functioning score (referred to as the 

“GAF” score in the record)1

 every six months; and (3) a written summary of Gilewski’s current 

condition, restrictions, and treatment plan, including medications. On February 20, 2013, Dr. 

Shiener responded with a letter stating that he had seen Gilewski monthly since November 2010, 

 

1

“Global Assessment of Functioning” is a simple ratings scale from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorders for evaluating how well a person is able to function and go about their life. The scale range is from 0 to 

100, where higher scores indicate greater levels of functioning. Optimal mental health and coping capabilities are 

represented by scores in the 91–100 range. Persons with mild psychological problems fall in the 71–90 range. 

Severe problems fall in the 21 – 30 range and 1–10 is reserved for persistently suicidal persons or persons incapable 

of meeting even minimal personal hygiene standards. The GAF score is made as a standard part of all 

psychiatric/psychological diagnoses. A score between 51 and 60 means moderate symptoms of mental illness are 

present, or that a person’s functioning in school, work, or social situations is moderately impaired. The Diagnostic 

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders provides some examples of moderate mental illness: Flat affect and 

circumstantial speech and occasional panic attacks. Examples of moderate functional impairments are few friends, 

and conflicts with peers or co-workers. The GAF is just one tool used by clinicians to develop the clinical picture. It 

cannot be used in isolation from the rest of the evidence to make a disability decision. 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 6 - 

and he enclosed a services-rendered accounting ledger listing the dates of Gilewski’s visits but 

no medical information. The letter further stated that Gilewksi’s Global Assessment of 

Functioning score was 40 when the treatment relationship began and increased to 59 in late 2011, 

that it fell to 40 thereafter, and that it had stabilized at around 50 after an adjustment in 

Gilewski’s medications. Finally, Dr. Shiener listed Gilewski’s medications and described his 

treatment plan. 

After reviewing Dr. Shiener’s letter, Dr. John Szlyk, an in-house psychiatrist at 

Provident, spoke with Dr. Shiener about Gilewski’s condition and treatment. After speaking 

with Dr. Shiener, Dr. Szlyk made a file notation observing that after four years of treatment, 

Gilewski still fluctuated in activity levels and symptoms. He noted that the duration of 

Gilewski’s recovery had gone from a 6-12 month window in late 2009 and early 2010 to 

“uncertain” under Dr. Shiener’s care. Based on this, Dr. Szlyk recommended that Provident 

obtain an independent medical examination “to clarify the insured’s diagnostic formulation, to 

assess his recent functional status and current Behavioral Health-based R/L’s, to provide 

recommendations for appropriate treatment, and to offer a timeframe for functional recovery 

with such care.” Dr. Szlyk opined that after four years of treatment with only marginal gains 

reported that more “aggressive/intense” treatment was needed. Provident selected Dr. Calmeze 

Dudley, a board certified psychiatrist, to conduct the exam of Gilewski. 

On June 19, 2013, Dr. Dudley examined Gilewski. Dr. Dudley diagnosed Gilewski with 

“Major Depressive Disorder, Unipolar, stabilized,” and assigned him a Global Assessment of 

functioning score of 80. Dr. Dudley’s independent psychiatric evaluation consisted of a history, 

mental status examination and record review. Dr. Dudley reported general improvement in sleep 

(8-9 hours per night) and increased energy despite some ongoing affective symptoms with 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 7 - 

Gilewski reporting “good days and bad days.” Dr. Dudley noted that Gilewski had recently 

restarted a regular exercise program consisting of gym workouts three to four times per week and 

weekly tennis with his attorney. Gilewski also reported to Dr. Dudley that he was able to spend 

time with close friends, enjoyed watching television and hunting, which he had done the 

previous winter, fishing, and taking family vacations to his parents’ homes in Northern Michigan 

and Florida. Gilewski reported that he and his wife shared the home chores and the care of their 

severely disabled 11-year-old son. Gilewski stated that his mood would have to be more stable 

before trying to return to work and that he had anticipatory anxiety at the prospect. Dr. Dudley 

noted that Gilewski “continues to be maintained on antidepressant medication and by all 

accounts is doing relatively well.” Dr. Dudley concluded that Gilewski did not require a 

psychiatric disability status and that he was able to return to work without restrictions. Based on 

Dr. Dudley’s report, Provident’s Dr. Szlyk concluded that Gilewski did not have restrictions or 

limitations that prevented him from returning to work. Dr. Szylk entered the following review of 

Dr. Dudley’s examination into the administrative record on July 2, 2013: 

Medical Issue: Insured is a 44 year old Auto-Related Molding Shop Owner with a 

history of Major Depressive Disorder who claimed disability as of 6-2-2009. The 

insured has been engaged in Behavioral Health treatment over nearly 4 years with 

no report of his return to his former occupational duties. Questions have arisen 

regarding the insured’s diagnostic formulation, the current level of support for 

Behavioral Health-based R/L’s, his engagement in appropriate Behavioral Health 

treatment, and his prognosis for functional recovery with continued care. It has 

appeared Dr. Shiener has viewed the insured as more ill than other providers 

have,—and yet has provided less intensive Behavioral Health treatment as the 

insured has seemingly done less well. Given the limited information provided by 

Dr. Shiener as he had taken over the care of the insured in 2011, it has been 

difficult to reconcile his reports of the insured’s doing poorly with a poor 

prognosis with other clinical information indicating the insured’s clinical 

progress, increased activity level, and thoughts of developing a small business. 

On July 12, 2013, Provident notified Gilewski that it would terminate his benefits based 

on its determination that he was able to perform the duties of his occupation. The termination 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 8 - 

letter stated that Dr. Dudley noted a diagnosis of major depressive disorder that has been 

stabilized. The termination letter also noted that Dr. Dudley concluded that Gilewski was doing 

“relatively well” and should continue on antidepressants, and that he was probably at or near 

maximum medical recovery. Benefits Termination Letter at 2, dated July 12, 2013. The letter 

went on to explain that the medical information indicated that Gilewski is able to perform the 

duties of his occupation and benefits would cease. 

On September 4, 2013, Dr. Shiener sent Provident a letter responding to Dr. Dudley’s 

report. Dr. Shiener stated that he believed Dr. Dudley’s assessment was incorrect, and that 

Gilewski was limited in his ability to take pleasure in activities and that his mood was markedly 

depressed. Dr. Shiener also noted that Dr. Dudley had limited experience in treating depressed 

patients. In an October 8, 2013, letter to Provident, Dr. Dudley responded to Dr. Shiener’s 

criticisms. Dr. Dudley stated that Dr. Shiener’s opinions were inconsistent with those rendered 

by Gilewski’s previous medical providers, and that, if the diagnosis provided by Dr. Shiener was 

accurate, Gilewski would require “a more intensified treatment intervention.” Finally, Dr. 

Dudley defended his qualifications to render an opinion, pointing out that he had 27 years of 

experience treating depressed patients. Thereafter, Provident informed Gilewski that it would 

not change its benefits decision in light of the additional information provided by Dr. Shiener 

and informed Gilewski of his right to appeal. 

Administrative Appeal 

On January 3, 2014, Gilewski appealed the termination of his benefits to Provident. 

Gilewski provided additional materials, including affidavits from family members describing his 

condition and activities, an affidavit from an executive in the automobile mold industry detailing 

the demands of that position, and a report from a vocational expert. Dr. Peter Brown, an 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 9 - 

independent board certified psychiatrist hired by Provident, reviewed Gilewski’s file for the 

appeal but did not conduct an independent medical examination. Dr. Brown concluded that 

Gilewski’s medical information did not support any restrictions or limitations. Dr. Brown noted 

that, although it was difficult to assess Dr. Shiener’s conclusions without medical records, 

Gilewski’s course of treatment was not consistent with a severe and pervasive psychiatric 

impairment. Dr. Brown also found that the Dr. Dudley’s independent examination was 

“comprehensive, thoughtful and consistent with professional standards.” 

On January 30, 2014, Provident notified Gilewski that it had affirmed its denial of 

benefits. The letter provided Provident’s reasoning for denying the appeal: 

The [independent] examiner [Dr. Dudley] did not find evidence of occupationally 

precluding restrictions or limitations. He concluded that the current level of 

treatment is appropriate and consistent with a stable condition. He recommended 

ongoing treatment. 

The attending psychiatrist [Dr. Shiener] has consistently asserted Mr. Gilewski 

continues to have severe and pervasive psychiatric impairment. The lack of actual 

treatment records does limit capacity to value this assertion. However, the course 

of treatment with reportedly monthly psychotherapy and a relatively modest and 

predominantly stable regimen through mid-2013 is not consistent with the 

presence of severe and pervasive psychiatric impairment. 

Appeal Denial Letter at 2-3, dated January 30, 2014. The letter stated that Gilewski’s treatment 

records would be helpful in evaluating Dr. Shiener’s conclusions, and that if those records were 

not available, Provident would review a summary that included changes in treatment and dates of 

medical services during 2013. Gilewski did not provide the suggested documents. 

Following the denial of his appeal, Gilewski filed this action in district court seeking 

review of Provident’s decision pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Gilewski alleged that Provident wrongly terminated his long-term 

benefits because the substantial weight of the evidence in the administrative record demonstrates 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 10 - 

that he has an ongoing disability and is unable to work under the terms of the policy. After a de 

novo review of the record, the district court found that Gilewski was not disabled as defined by 

the policy and affirmed Provident’s decision to terminate benefits. Gilewski v. Provident Life 

and Accident Ins. Co., No. 1:15-CV-238, 2016 WL 3355555 (W.D. Mich. June 17, 2016). This 

appeal followed. 

II. ANALYSIS 

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in holding that Provident’s 

decision to terminate Gilewski’s long-term disability benefits was supported by substantial 

evidence in the administrative record. Gilewski’s primary complaint is that the Provident did not 

give enough weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Shiener, and relied instead on the 

opinions of nontreating psychiatrists, only one of whom had actually examined Gilewski. 

Gilewski also contends on appeal that the district court erred in not requiring Provident to 

consider the evidence submitted by Gilewski regarding a vocational expert who opined about the 

demands of Gilewski’s occupation, and he also maintains that the administrative process was 

marred by a conflict of interest because Provident is both the decisionmaker and the payor of 

benefits. 

Standard of Review 

 Provident does not dispute that the plan administrator’s decision in this case is not 

entitled to deference. “In cases in which a plan administrator is given no discretionary authority 

by the plan, review of the plan administrator’s decision by the district court—as well as the court 

of appeals—is de novo, with respect to both the plan administrator’s interpretation of the plan 

and the plan administrator’s factual findings.” Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 

609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998). We therefore review the district court’s judgment on Gilewski’s claim 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 11 - 

de novo, applying the same standard of review to the plan administrator’s action as the district 

court, taking a “fresh look” at the administrative record, and according no deference or 

presumption of correctness to the decisions of either the district court or plan administrator. Id. 

Medical Evidence 

To succeed in his claim for disability benefits under ERISA, Gilewski must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that he was “disabled,” as that term is defined in the policy. See 

Tracy v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Absence Payment Plan, 195 F. App’x 511, 516 n.4 (6th Cir. 

2006) (plaintiff bears the burden of proof in an ERISA benefits case). The policy defines 

“disability” in part to mean that the insured has experienced a “Loss of Time or duties in your 

occupation.” The definition of “Loss of Time or Duties in your occupation” requires that “you 

are not able to perform one or more of the substantial and material duties of your occupation,” or 

that “you are not able to perform the substantial and material duties of your occupation for as 

much time as you regularly performed them before you became disabled.” Policy at 5, 7. The 

administrative record demonstrates that every health-care professional agrees that Gilewski 

suffers from Major Depressive Disorder. The question is whether that condition had stabilized 

sufficiently as of July 12, 2013, to allow Gilewski to return to his past profession running an 

automotive supply company. After a careful and comprehensive review of the full 

administrative record, we find that Gilewski has not established that he is unable to work in a 

position equivalent to when he was the owner of Radiance Mold and Engineering. 

In reaching this conclusion, we look at the medical evidence. “Generally speaking, an 

administrator may not summarily reject the opinions of a treating physician, but must instead 

give reasons for adopting an alternative opinion.” Elliott v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 473 F.3d 613, 

620 (6th Cir. 2006). Administrators, however, are not obligated to accord special deference to 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 12 - 

the opinions of treating physicians. Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834 

(2003). To that extent, a lack of objective medical evidence upon which to base a treating 

physician’s opinion has been held sufficient reason for an administrator’s choice not to credit 

that opinion. See, e.g., Boone v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 161 F. App’x 469, 473 (6th 

Cir. 2005) (administrator’s decision not to credit treating physicians’ assessments not arbitrary 

because the assessments were not supported by objective evidence, as required by the plan 

document). Provident is not entitled to simply ignore the opinions provided by Gilewski’s 

treating psychiatrist, but it can resolve conflicts between that opinion and the opinions of its own 

file reviewers or independent examiners if it provides reasons—including a lack of objective 

evidence from the treating physician—for adopting the alternative opinions that are consistent 

with its responsibility to provide a full and fair review of the claim. See Curry v. Eaton Corp., 

400 F. App’x 51, 55 (6th Cir. 2010); Calvert v. Firstar Finance, Inc., 409 F.3d 286, 296 (6th Cir. 

2005) (There is “nothing inherently objectionable about a file review by a qualified physician in 

the context of a benefits determination.”) 

We recognize that depression can be difficult to measure through “objective” tests, but 

that difficulty does not render us unable to evaluate the medical evidence. The record provides 

numerous evaluations made by mental-health professionals over a four-year period. There are 

self-reporting records from the patient collected during examinations, home visits, and in the 

form of activity logs completed by Gilewski. The medical evidence in the administrative record 

indicates that depression made it difficult for Gilewski to concentrate, handle stress, remember 

things, interact with employees and customers or to make decisions. We acknowledge that all 

the mental health professionals who have evaluated Gilewski since the onset of his illness, both 

treating and nontreating, have diagnosed major depression. But the records also show that with 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 13 - 

therapy and medication, Gilewski has shown consistent improvement in his activity level in the 

four-year period since he became ill, including participating in regular exercise, taking vacations, 

“tinkering” in his barn, hunting and fishing, handling chores around the house, including child 

care, taking care of his own hygiene, and interacting with family and friends appropriately. 

Gilewski repeatedly maintains in his briefs on appeal that Dr. Shiener’s opinion was “not 

credited.” Dr. Shiener’s attending physician statements provided to Provident, however, did not 

contain any analysis or content to help enlighten or explain in any detail why Dr. Shiener 

believed Gilewski could not work or what treatment he was providing to move Gilewski toward 

better mental health. Dr. Shiener submitted photocopies of the exact same statements with only 

the date changed for over a year: they said simply said that Gilewski was depressed, unable to 

work and his prognosis was uncertain. Dr. Shiener stopped submitting photocopies of prior 

statements in the spring of 2013 after Provident asked for an independent examination, but even 

his later statements provided minimal information. For example, Dr. Shiener changed 

Gilewski’s prognosis from “good” to “guarded” in April 2013 without further explanation. With 

such abbreviated analyses from Dr. Shiener, we cannot say on review of the administrative 

record that it was improper of Provident to fail to give controlling weight to Dr. Shiener’s 

opinion. 

In addition to a dearth of information from Dr. Shiener, the attending physician 

statements and reports he did provide were incompatible with Gilewski’s self-reported activity 

level and abilities in 2012 and 2013, as well as with the other medical opinions, including the 

opinion of Dr. Dudley, who performed an independent medical examination on Gilewski in June 

2013, and the file reviews of Dr. Szylk, Provident’s in-house psychiatrist, and Dr. Brown, the 

independent reviewer for the administrative appeal. The nontreating physicians all agreed with 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 14 - 

Dr. Shiener’s diagnosis of major depressive disorder, but the nontreating physicians believed the 

condition to be “stabilized” and well-treated with Gilewski’s current medications. Dr. Dudley 

noted that if after four years of treatment Gilewski’s condition and prognosis were as poor as Dr. 

Shiener believed, Gilewski should be receiving more intensive treatment through changed 

medications, intensive psychotherapy, or even in-patient treatment at a psychiatric facility. Even 

after Dr. Dudley sent his report to Dr. Shiener, Dr. Shiener gave no indication that he thought a 

change in treatment was needed at that time. 

Dr. Shiener’s opinion is also at odds with the earlier opinions of Dr. Guyer and Dr. 

Roberts who treated Gilewski in 2009 through 2011. Both treating doctors indicated in their 

treatment notes that Gilewski was improving by 2010, and Dr. Roberts noted in 2011 that 

Gilewski should be able to return to work within six months. Gilewski himself told Dr. Roberts 

in 2010 that he was feeling better and was thinking about what he might do as far as future work. 

We recognize that these reports are not as current as Dr. Shiener’s, but without medical records 

or further explanation from Gilewski, we are left to review an administrative record that shows 

progress for two years under two doctors followed by apparent setbacks in 2012 and 2013 

according to Dr. Shiener’s reports. Dr. Shiener notes the tragic death of one of Gilewski’s good 

friends in 2011 and Gilewski’s decision to cut back on his medications as reasons for the 

setback. What the record does not show is why Dr. Shiener did not respond to these setbacks 

more vigorously if he believed them to so severely compromise Gilewski’s progress up to that 

time. 

Ability to Return to Previous Position

We also looked to the nature of Gilewski’s previous position. See Elliott, 473 F.3d at 

618 (a decision on a disability benefits claim requires “an application of the relevant evidence to 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 15 - 

the occupational standard” because “medical data, without reasoning, cannot produce a logical 

judgment about a claimant’s work ability”). Both parties agree that Gilewski’s job as the owner 

and president of an auto supply company was demanding, stressful and required long hours. Dr. 

Dudley, the independent psychiatrist who examined Gilewski, was instructed to consider 

whether Gilewski was disabled from performing the material and substantial duties of his 

previous occupation as the owner and president of an automotive supply company. Dr. Dudley 

concluded that Gilewski’s Global Assessment of Functioning score of 80 indicated no more than 

a “slight impairment” in occupational functioning, and he determined that Gilewski did not have 

any restrictions that would prevent him from returning to his previous position. Gilewski had 

provided Provident with extensive information about the nature and duties of his occupation. 

They are not in dispute. Dr. Dudley, and the psychiatrists who reviewed the file, had this 

information when they determined that Gilewski could return to work with no limitations. 

Gilewski disputes this finding and contends that Provident should have provided a job 

analysis by consulting a vocational expert about his ability to return to his former occupation. 

Provident maintains it was not required to do so. See Judge v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 710 F.3d 

651, 662 (6th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases); Burge v. Republic Engineered Prods., Inc., 432 F. 

App’x 539, 550 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Republic was also not required to consider vocational 

evidence, as opposed to medical evidence, in analyzing Burge’s claim.”) (citing Douglas v. Gen. 

Dynamics Long Term Disability Plan, 43 F. App’x 864, 870 (6th Cir. 2002) (vocational expert 

not required outside of social security context)). Vocational expert testimony “is the special 

creature of social security,” and has no relevance to long-term disability claims like the one here 

where the question is whether Gilewski is able to return to his former position based on the 

medical evidence. Conley v. Pitney Bowes, 176 F.3d 1044, 1050 (8th Cir. 1999). 
Case No. 16-2028, Gilewski v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

- 16 - 

Conflict of Interest 

Gilewski correctly asserts that Provident has a conflict of interest because of its dual role 

as both payor of benefits and decisionmaker, and that courts treat this conflict as a factor in 

reviewing a plan administrator’s decision. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 111 

(2008). The Supreme Court also noted in Glenn that such a conflict “should prove more 

important . . . where circumstances suggest a higher likelihood that it affected the benefits 

decision.” Id. at 117; accord Judge, 710 F.3d at 663 (“[T]his court has given greater weight to 

the conflict-of-interest factor when the claimant ‘offers more than conclusory allegations of 

bias.’”) (quoting DeLisle v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 558 F.3d 440, 445 (6th Cir. 2009)). 

Gilewski has demonstrated no circumstances indicating a need to give the conflict significant 

weight. Gilewski’s conflict argument on appeal centers on his assertion that Dr. Dudley, the 

independent psychiatrist, “relied” on the summaries written by Provident’s in-house psychiatrist, 

Dr. Szylk. As the independent medical examiner, Dr. Dudley was provided with all the medical 

records in Gilewski’s file, which included treating physician records as well as in-house 

documents. Our review of Dr. Dudley’s report does not show that Dr. Dudley “relied” on Dr. 

Szylk’s summaries. Dr. Dudley conducted his own examination of Gilewski and wrote a 

comprehensive report. The fact that Dr. Dudley agreed with some of Dr. Szylk’s summaries and 

put them in his report does not demonstrate that Dr. Dudley was not independent and unbiased in 

reporting on his examination of Gilewski. 

In conclusion, reviewing the administrative record and giving no deference to Provident’s 

decision to terminate benefits, we find substantial evidence supports Provident’s decision to 

terminate Gilewski’s long-term disability benefits. We affirm the judgment of the district court.