# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 25 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ro dn ey W al do ch

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Med tro ni c, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 1, 2 01 4
Fil ed : J ul y

9, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ro dn ey W al do ch su ed hi s fo rm er em pl oyer Med tro ni c, In c., al le gi n g th at

Med tro ni c im

pr op erl y de ni ed hi s cl ai m fo r be ne fit s un de r a lo ng -te rm di sa bi li ty pl an (th e Pl an ) go ve rn ed by th e Em pl oym en t Ret ire m en t In co m e Secu rit y Act of 19 74(ERISA)

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Med tro ni c’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. W e 1

affi rm

.

I.

A.

Bec au se th is cas e a r i s e s fro m th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, we reci te th e

fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to W al d o c h

. S e e Eis en ric h v. Mi nn eap ol is Ret ai l

Mea t Cu tt ers & Fo od Han dl ers Pen si on Pl an , 5 7 4 F

. 3 d 6 4 4, 64 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

W al do ch was a Sen io r Bu y er-P la nn er fo r Med tro ni c fro m 20 01 un ti l hi s te rm in at io n

in 20 08

. W al do ch ha s Ty

pe I Diab et es Mel li tu s. In 20 04

, W al do ch ’s en do cri no lo gi st

wro te a le tt er to M ed tro ni c ad vi si ng th at W al do ch ’s di ab et es co nt ro l ha d be co m e

ag gr av at e d d u e t o su bs ta nt ia l st res s at wor k. The do ct or reco m m en de d th at

W al d o c h ’s wor kwe ek be red uc ed to 32 ho ur s. At wor k, W al do ch st ru gg le d to

ba la nc e hi s hea lt h nee ds wit h h is po si ti on ’s dem an ds . He ba tt le d fati gu e an d m oo d

swi ng s an d st ru gg le d wit h ret in op at hy, ne ur op at hy, cal f-t ig h te ni ng , hypert en si on , hyperl ip id em ia

, an d carp al -tu nn el synd ro m e. In 20 05

, W al do ch was di ag no se d wit h

“ hypo gl y cem ia un aware ne ss .” Fro m 20 06 to 20 07

, W al do ch ’s wor k pe rfo rm an ce
de cl in ed si gn ifi can tl y , an d he be ga n fo r th e fir st ti m e to rece iv e l o w marks on hi s

pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s. In 20 07 , ano th er en do cri no lo gi st Dr. Mo nt or i, no te d th at

W al do ch ha d le ss gl uc os e va ria bi li ty an d ha d be en ach ie vi ng “ go od res ul ts .”

Nev ert he le ss , Dr. Mo nt or i no te d t h at rece nt la y of fs at Med tro ni c ha d affe ct ed

W al do ch ’s st res s l ev el s an d “ hi s ab il it y to co pe wit h h is di se as e.”

W al do ch ’s wor k- rel at ed st res s co nt in ue d in to 20 08

. Dr. Mo nt or i co nt in ue d to

op i ne th at W al do ch ’s job ob li ga ti on s co nt rib ut ed to hi s ov eral l st res s. W al do ch ’s

pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s refl ect ed hi s fru st rat io n an d in ab il it y to in te ract wit h hi s co

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-w o r k e r s

. Des pi te W al do ch ’s effo rts to m an ag e hi s he al th an d im pr ov e hi s wor k

pe rfo rm an ce, o n No ve m

be r 24 , 20 08 , he was ter m in at ed by Medt ro ni c.

B.

Med tro ni c pr ov id ed it s em pl oyees a se lf- fu nd ed

, se lf- ad m in is te red lo ng -te rm
di sa bi li ty pl an

. The Pl an was “ de si gn ed to pr ov id e be ne fit s fo r qu al ifyin g di sa bi li ti es

la st in g lo ng er th an 26 week s.” Ben efi ts be ga n whe n th e e mp l o yee “ ha [s ] be en

Tot al ly Dis ab le d fo r 26 week s in a ro ll in g 12 -m on th pe rio d ” a n d “h a [ s] pr ov id ed

do cu m en ta ti on sa ti sf

act or y to Med tro ni c or it s de le ga te d cl a i ms a d m in is tra to r

pr ov id in g th at [th e em

pl oyee is ] Tot a l l y Dis ab le d.” The Pl an de fin ed “ Tot al

Dis ab il it y an d To ta ll y

Dis ab le d” as f

ol lo ws:

Dur in g th e 26 -week el im in at io n pe rio d an d du rin g th e fir st y ear th at y ou

are r e c e iv in g Lon g Term Dis ab il it y Ben efi ts , you are co ns id ered to be

Tot al ly Dis ab le d if y ou are un de r th e care of a Ph y si ci an an d pr ev en te d
fro m pe rfo rm in g each of th e es se nt ia l fu n c t i o n s of y ou r reg ul ar

oc cu pa ti on be cau se of an il ln es s or acci de nt al in jury an d y ou are no t

wor ki ng at al l. The on e y ear per io d beg in s on th e fir st da y as of whi ch

y ou ha ve be en ap pr ov ed to rece iv e Lon g Ter m Dis ab il it y

Ben efi ts

.

To b e co ns id ered Tot al ly Dis ab le d aft er th is pe rio d of ti m e, th e il ln es s

or acci de nt al in

jury m us t pr ev en t y ou fro m wor ki ng at an y oc cu pa ti o n fo r whi ch y ou are, or co ul d reas on ab ly be co m e, qu al ifi ed by ed uc at io n,
tra in in g o r ex pe rie nc e, an d you are n ot work in g a t al l.

As th e de fin it io ns of Tot al Dis ab il it y an d Tot al ly Dis ab le d in di cat e, th e Pl an br ok e

up di sa bi li ty ben efi ts in to two cat eg or ie s: (1 ) “ reg ul ar oc cu pa ti on ” or as th e pa rti es

refe r to it “ own oc cu pa ti on ” LTD ben efi ts an d (2 ) “ an y oc cu pa ti on ” LTD ben efi ts

.

In or de r to ob ta in LTD be ne fit s un de r th e Pl an , a Med tro ni c e mp l o ye e was

req ui red to fir st su bm it an ap pl ic at io n to th e Cl ai m s A dm in is tra to r. The Cl ai m s
Adm in is tra to r wou ld ren de r a de ci si on an d no ti fy th e em pl oyee of th e ou tc om e. The

-3

-Pl an pr ov id ed th at th e Cl ai m s Adm in is tra to r “ m ay se cu re in de pe nd en t m ed ic al or

ot he r ad vi ce an d req ui re su ch ot he r ev id e n c e a s it de em s ne ces sa ry to de ci de [a]

cl ai m .” If a di sa bi li ty cl ai m was de ni ed

, th e em pl oyee ret ai ne d th e rig ht to ap pe al th e
Cl ai m s Adm in is tra to r’s de ci si on

. Thro ug ho ut th e pr oc es s, th e em pl oyee ret ai ne d th e

re spon sib il it y to “ pr ov id e m ed ic al ev id en ce, sa ti sf act or y to Med tro ni c or it s dele ga te d

cl ai m s ad m in is tra to r” o f th e em pl oyee’s Tot al Dis ab il it y

.

As t o t he is su e o f di sc ret io na ry au th or it y , th e Pl an st at ed :

The Pl an Adm in is tra to r ha s co m pl et e an d to ta l di sc ret io na ry au th or it y
to i n t e r p r e t an d ad m in is te r th e Pl an

. The Sen io r Vice Pres id en t of

Hum an Res ou rces , Vice P r e s id en t of Co m pe ns at io n an d Ben efi ts or Dire ct or o f U.S. Ben efi ts

, ha ve th e au th or it y an d res po ns ib il it y to in te rp ret th e Pl an , m ak e ru le s, de te rm in e el ig ib il it y fo r be ne fit s, de te rmi n e co ve rag e an d be ne fit am ou nt s, an d res ol ve al l cl ai m s an d
di sp ut es reg ard in g th e Pl an

. The de ci si on s of th e Sen io r Vice Pres id en t of Hum an Res ou rces , Vice Pres id en t of Com pe ns at io n and Ben efi ts or Dire ct or of U.S. Ben efi ts are f i n a l a n d bi nd in g on al l pe rs on s. The
Sen io r Vice Pres id en t of Hum an Res ou rces , Vice Pres id en t of
Co m pe ns at io n an d Ben efi ts or Di r e c t or of U.S. Ben efi ts m ay fu rth er de le ga te an y an d al l au th or it y un de r th e Pl an as th ey de em ap pr op ria te

.

Med tro n i c e nt ered in to a Lon g Term Dis ab il it y Ben efi t Adm in is tra ti on Agr eem en t (th e Serv ic es Agr eem en t) wit h H a rtf or d- Co m pr eh en si ve Em

pl oyee

Ben efi t Serv ic e Co m

pa ny (Hart fo rd ). In th e Serv ic es Agr eem en t, Hart fo rd ag reed to

ev al ua te an d cal cu la te LTD be n e f i t s u n d er th e Pl an

. Mo reo ve r, th e Serv ic es Agr eem en t in cl ud ed an “ App eal Ass is ta nc e” se ct io n un de r whi ch Hart fo rd ag reed to

as si st Med tro ni c, “ in a no nf id uc ia ry cap aci ty, wit h de ni ed cl ai m s on ap pe al .” The

se ct io n sp eci fic al ly pr ov id ed th at Hart fo rd di d “ no t m ak e fin al cl ai m de te rm in at io ns

on ap pe al .” In st ead

, Hart fo rd wou ld m erel y pro vi de Med tro ni c a rec om m en da ti on

. The Serv ic es Agr eem en t em ph as iz ed th at Hart fo rd on ly act ed a s a pr ov id er of

se rv ic es to Med tro ni c’s Pl an

. Hart fo rd di d no t “ in su re [Me dt ro ni c’s] P l a n i n an y

-4

-way ,” was “ no t a fid uc ia ry ,” an d di sc la im ed an y res po ns ib il it ie s to pe rfo rm an y of th e

fu nc ti on s re qu ire d b y

ERISA.

To su m m ari ze Med tro ni c’s rev ie w pr oc ed ur e s , Hart fo rd co ll ect ed an d

pr oc es se d LTD be ne f

it ap pl ic at io ns an d m ad e th e in it ia l, be ne fit -el ig ib il it y
de te rm in at io n. If th e pl an pa rti ci pa nt was un ha pp y wit h Hart fo rd ’s de ci si on , th en th e

pa rti ci pa nt ret ai ne d th e rig ht to ap pe al th e de ci si on to Med tro ni c. On ap pe al

, Hart fo rd co ns id ered th e pa rti ci pa nt ’s arg um en t, co nd uc te d fu rth er in ve st ig at io n if

req ui red

, an d reco m

m en de d a c t i o n fo r Med tro ni c to ul ti m at el y ta ke

. Med tro ni c 2

ex erci se d fi na l au th or it y

to de te rm in e th e o ut co m e o f an y co nt es te d b en efi t cl ai m s.

C.

W al d o c h f

i l ed hi s cl ai m fo r LTD be ne fit s wit h Med tro ni c on Ju ly 27

, 20 09

. W al do ch at ta ch ed to hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r LTD be ne fit s Dr. Mo nt or i’s as se ss m en t of hi s

co nd it io n. Dr. Mo nt or i op in ed th at W al do ch ha d no ph y si cal res tri ct io ns , bu t th at he

co ul d no t en ga ge in pr ed ic ta bl e on go in g act iv it y , of an y type, wit ho ut di sr up ti on by

va ria ti on in hi s bl oo d su ga r. In a su pp le m en t a l r e p o r t

, Dr. Mo nt or i st at ed th at

W al do ch ne ed ed to “ se lf- m on it or fre q u e n t l y a nd be vi gi la nt wit h hi s su ga r le ve ls .”

Tho ug h th e cau se of th e va ria ti on s was “ so m ewh at un cl ear,” Dr. Mo nt or i no te d th at

bl oo d su ga r va ria bi li ty can le ad to un ex pe ct ed hypo gl y cem ia

, whi ch in tu rn can al te r

co nc en tra ti on , m oo d, co gn it io n, an d ju dg m en t.

Hart fo rd de ni ed W al do ch ’s cl ai m fo r LTD be ne fit s in Aug us t 20 09

, reas on in g

th at W al do ch fai le d to pr od uc e ev id en ce th at he was di sa bl ed pr io r to hi s te rm in at io n
da te

. In Feb ru ary 20 10

, Wa l d o c h ap pe al ed th e de ci si on to Med tro ni c. W al do ch

su bm it te d ad di ti on al do ct or s’ no te s wit h hi s ap pe al

, an d H a r t fo rd ret ai ne d Drs.

In a le tt er se nt to W al do ch in Ju ne 20 11

, Hart fo rd in co r rect ly in di cat ed th at 2

it was act in g as in su rer an d fid uc ia ry on Wa ld oc h’s cl ai m

. Thi s m is ta ke was

co rrec te d s ho rtl y

aft er i n a Ju ly 201 1 fo ll ow- up let te r.

-5

-Gol dm an an d Fo rd an to rev ie w th e fil e. Dr. Fo rd an , who was bo a r d c e r t i f ie d in

I n t e r na l Med ic in e, End oc rin ol og y , Diab et es , an d Met ab ol is m , co nc lu de d th at

W al do ch ’s on ly ev id en ce o f i mp ai rm en t st em m ed fro m hi s own se lf- rep or ti ng

. Mo reo ve r, acco rd in g to Dr. Fo rd an , W al do ch at tri bu te d th e ch an ge s in hi s pe rs on al it y

to hi s flu ct ua ti ng bl oo d su ga r, bu t, W al do ch fai le d to reb ut t h e co nv ers e, th at “ hi s
bl oo d su ga rs flu ct ua te du e to hi s be ha vi or .” Nev ert he le ss , in Ju ne 20 10

, Med tro ni c

ov erru le d Hart fo rd ’s reco m m en da ti on to co m

pl et el y de ny be ne fit s an d de te rmi n ed

th at W al do ch was en ti tl ed “ own oc cu pa ti on ” LTD be ne fit s. Bec au se of th e st res s

in he ren t in W al do c h ’s po si ti on at Med tro ni c, Med tro ni c de te rm in ed th at “ own

oc cu pa ti on ” be ne fit s were jus ti fie d. Med tro ni c de te rm in ed th at fu rth er in ve st ig at io n

was req ui red be fo re a d eci si on on “ an y oc cu pa ti on ” LTD ben efi ts co ul d b e m ad e.

Hart fo rd be ga n i ts ad di ti on al rev ie w b y req ue st in g an em pl oyabi li ty an al y si s

rep or t (EAR) to de te rm in e ot he r po te nt ia ll y co m pa ti bl e po si ti on s fo r whi ch W al do ch

was qu al ifi ed

. The EAR id en ti fie d 5 oc cu pa ti on s wit hi n th e “ cl os es t” l e v e l

, 3 8

oc cu pa ti on s wit hi n th e “ go od ” le ve l, 10 7 oc cu pa ti on s wit hi n th e “ fai r” le ve l, an d 95

oc cu pa ti on s wit hi n th e “ po te nt ia l” le ve l. Har t f o rd al so ret ai ne d Dr. Mei kl e, an

en do cri no lo gi st

, to rev ie w W al do ch ’s m ed ic al reco rd s fro m 20 04 to 20 10

. Acco rd in g

to Dr. Mei kl e, W al do ch was at m in im al ris k fo r hypo gl y cem ia an d hi s hypo gl y cem ia

aware ne ss was go od

. In th e m ean t i me, in Sep te m be r 20 10

, W al do ch in fo rm ed

Hart fo rd th at th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on (SSA) h a d ap pr ov ed hi s di sa bi li ty

cl ai m

. The SSA affo rd ed th e op in io ns of W al do ch ’s tre at in g ph y si ci an s co nt ro ll in g weig ht to reac h it s de ci si on th at W al do ch di d no t ha ve th e ab il it y to s u s t a i n w or k

act iv it y fo r ei gh t ho ur s a da y , fiv e da y s a week

. Nev ert he le ss , in Octo be r 20 10

, ba se d

on th e EAR an d Dr. Mei kl e’s rev ie w, as well as th e earl ie r rev ie ws pe rfo rm ed by Drs.

Fo rd an an d Gol dm an , Hart fo rd de ni ed Wa ld oc h’s “ an y oc cu pa ti on ” LTD cl ai m

. Hart fo rd ack no wled ge d W al do ch ’s di ab et es bu t reas on ed th at wor k st res so rs

ap pe ared to be dri vi ng W al do ch ’s ov eral l d ecl in e in he al th

.

-6

-Onc e ag ai n W al do ch ap pe al ed Hart fo rd ’s de ni al to M e d t ro ni c, th is ti m e,

ap pe al in g Hart fo rd ’s d e ni al of “ an y oc cu pa ti on ” LTD be ne fit s. Alo ng wit h hi s

ap pe al

, W al do ch su bm it te d as se ss m en t s f r o m Drs. Mo nt or i, Kud va , an d Seaq ui st

. W al do ch ’s do ct or s di sa gr eed wit h Hartfo rd ’s do ct or s. W al do ch ’s do ct or s reas on ed

t ha t W al do ch was un ab le to pr ed ic t th e oc cas io n an d se ve rit y of hi s hypo gl yc e mi c

ep is od es

. Dr. Seaq ui st co nt en de d th at W al do ch ’s hypo gl y cem ia co u l d pr od uc e

sym pt om s of fat ig ue an d m ak e it di ffi cu lt fo r hi m to co nc en tra te

. Hart fo rd res po nd ed

to W al do ch ’s ap pe al by ret ai ni ng an ad di ti on al rev ie win g do ct or , Dr. Co op er. Dr.

Co op er be li ev e d th at W al do ch co ul d fu nc ti on in a lo w st res s, “ sym pa th et ic ”

wor kp la ce. He co nc lu de d th at W al do ch co ul d op erat e in an en vi ro nm en t wit h acce ss

to carb oh y dr at es for sn ack in g a nd free do m to tak e fre qu en t b reak s.

On Aug us t 16

, 20 11

, Hart fo rd reco m m en de d in an em ai l to Med tro ni c th at

Med tro ni c s h o u l d up ho ld th e de ni al of W al do ch ’s “ an y oc cu pa ti on ” LTD cl ai m

. Att ach ed to th e em ai l was a fo ur -p ag e e x ecu ti ve su m m ary hi gh li gh ti ng W al do ch ’s

arg um en ts an d Hart fo rd ’s res po ns es to each arg um en t. App

. 11 79 -8 2. The ne xt da y , H ar tf or d sh ip pe d W al do ch ’s m ed ic al reco rd s to Med tro ni c. On Aug us t 18

, Med troni c

res po nd ed to Hart fo rd ’s reco m m en da ti on : “ W e ag ree wit h th e reco m m en da ti on to

up ho ld th e de ni al .” App

. 11 75

. W al do ch was in fo rm ed by Hart fo rd th at hi s cl ai m

ha s be en de ni ed

, a n d Wa l do ch req ue st ed th at Hart fo rd reco ns id er it s de ci si on ,

co nt en di ng th at Dr. Co op er fai le d to ad dr es s a se co nd as se ss m en t perf or m ed by Dr.
Seaq ui st

. At Med tro n i c ’s req ue st

, Hart fo rd in st ru ct ed Dr. Co op er to ad dr es s th e

as se ss m en t. Dr. Co op er co m pl ie d wit h th e req ue st bu t di d no t ch an ge hi s po si ti on

. Hart fo r d r e l a ye d th e in fo rm at io n to Med tro ni c. On Nov em be r 28

, 20 11

, W al do ch

was in fo rm ed th at Med tro ni c ha d up he ld it s d e c i s i on to de ny W al do ch ’s cl ai m fo r

“ an y oc cupa tio n” L T D be ne fit s. W it h th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s ex ha us te d, W al do ch

fil ed th is su it Ju ly 6, 20 12

.

-7

-II.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t. Eis en ric h,

57 4 F.3 d at 64 7. The ul ti m at e qu es ti on in th is ap pe al is whe th er Med tro ni c vi ol at ed

ERISA by im

pr op erl y de nyin g W al do ch ’s cl ai m fo r “ an y oc cu pa ti on ” LTD be ne fit s.

In or de r to an swe r th is qu es ti on , we m us t fir st de te rm in e th e pr op er st an d a rd of

rev ie w

. Th e di st ric t co ur t rev ie wed Med tro ni c’s de ni al of be ne fit s fo r ab us e of

d i s c ret io n. “ W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d th e co r r e c t

st an da rd of rev ie w” to as se ss th e pl an ad m in is tra to r’s de ci si on

. Si eg el v. Co nn

. Gen

. Life In s. Co., 70 2 F.3d 10 44

, 10 48 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t

th at th e ab us e

- o f

- di sc ret io n st an da rd ap pl ie s, an d we ho ld th at Med tro ni c di d no t

ab us e it s d is cret io n.

A.

A pl an ad m in is tra to r’s de ni al of ERISA ben efi ts is rev ie wed de no vo “ un le ss

th e be ne fit pl an gi ve s t h e a d mini st rat or or fid uc ia ry di sc ret io na ry au th or it y to

de te rm in e el ig ib il it y fo r be ne fit s or to co ns tru e th e te rm s of th e pl an .” Fi res to ne Tire

& Ru bb er Co

. v. Bru ch

, 48 9 U.S. 1 0 1

, 1 1 5 ( 1 9 89 ). If th e pl an gr an ts su ch

di sc ret io na ry au th or it y , th en th e pl an ad m in is tra to r’s de ci si on is rev ie wed fo r ab us e

of di sc ret io n. Kin g v. Hart fo rd Life & Acc. In s. Co

., 41 4 F.3 d 99 4, 99 8- 99 (8 th Ci r.

2 0 0 5 ) (en ba nc ). Here, th e Pl an st at es th at “ [t]he Pl an Adm in is tra to r ha s co mp l e t e

an d to ta l di sc ret io na ry au th or it y to in te rp ret an d ad m in is te r th e Pl an .” Thi s la ng ua ge
is su ffi ci en t to tri gg er th e ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. See McKe eh an v. Ci gn a Life

In s. Co ., 34 4 F .3d 78 9, 7 92 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

W al do ch do es n o t c o n te st th is po in t. In st ead

, he as se rts th at pr oc ed ur al

irr eg ul ari ti es in Med tro ni c’s rev ie w ren de r th e ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

in ap pr op ria te

. I n res po ns e to si m il ar al le ga ti on s m ad e be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t,

Med tro ni c su pp le m en te d th e reco rd wit h ev id en ce de m on st rat in g it s cl ai m s- ha nd li ng

pr oc es s. W al do c h f

i l e d a m ot io n to st rik e th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce, whi ch was

ov erru le d by th e di st ric t co ur t. Befo re co n s i d eri ng whe th er th e al le ge d pr oc ed ur al

-8

-irr eg ul ari ti es ex is t, we co ns i d e r whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ov erru li ng

W al do ch ’s m ot io n t o s tri ke

.

1.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on W al do ch ’s m ot io n to st rik e fo r ab us e

of di sc ret io n. See Jo ne s v. Rel ia St ar Life In s. Co

., 61 5 F.3 d 94 1, 94 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 );

acco rd Eug en e S. v. Hor iz on Bl ue Cro ss Bl ue S h ie ld of N.J., 66 3 F.3 d 11 24

, 11 29
(1 0t h Ci r. 20 11 ). Gen eral ly “ a rev ie win g co ur t ‘m us t fo cu s on th e ev id en ce av ai la bl e

to th e pl an ad m in is tra to rs a t t h e ti m e of th ei r de ci si on an d m ay no t ad m it ne w

ev id e n c e o r c o n si de r po st ho c rat io na le s.’” See Kin g, 41 4 F.3 d at 99 9 (q uo ti ng

Co nl ey v. Pi tn ey Bo wes , 17 6 F.3 d 10 44

, 10 49 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )). Bec au se ou r rev ie w

in cas es in whi ch an ERISA pl an gr an ts th e pl an ad m in is tra to r di sc ret io na ry au th or it y
fo cu se s on whe th er th e ad m in is tra to r’s de c i s io n was “ su pp or te d by

. . . su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce in th e m at eri al s co ns id ered by th e ad m in is tra to r,” se e id

., li m it in g th e reco rd

o n ap pe al to th e reco rd be fo re th e pl an ad m in is tra to r is lo gi cal

, se e M u r p h y v

. Delo it te & Tou ch e Grp . I ns . P la n, 61 9 F .3d 11 51 , 11 59 (10 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ Bec au se

th e ad m in is tra to r m

us t ba se it s d e c i s i o n on th e m at eri al s in cl ud ed in th e
ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd

, a di st ric t co ur t wou ld ha ve no jus ti fic at io n fo r co nc lu di ng th at

an ad m in is tra to r ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by fai li ng to co ns id er m at eri al s ne ve r su bm it te d

to it fo r in cl us io n in t h e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd .”). Thi s ge ne ral ru le

, ho wev er, is

rel ax ed whe n ev id en ce is ad m it te d fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e of de te rm in in g th e pr op er

st an da rd of rev ie w. See Farl ey v. Ark

. Bl ue Cro ss & Bl ue Sh ie ld

, 14 7 F.3 d 77 4, 77 6

& n .4 (8 th Cir . 19 98 ).

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t ad m it te d th e affi da vi t of Med tro ni c’s pr in ci pa l be ne fit s

an al y st Lau ra Erch ul al on g wit h th e e x h i bi ts at ta ch ed

. Thi s ev id en ce he lp ed

il lu m in at e th e in te ract io n bet ween Hart fo rd an d Med tro ni c th ro ug ho ut th e ha nd li ng

o f Wa ld oc h’s cl ai m

. Med tro ni c di d no t of fer th e ev id en ce to de m on st rat e a ne w

rat io na le fo r de nyi n g W al do ch ’s cl ai m

. Cf. Kin g, 41 4 F.3 d at 99 9. In st ead

, Me dtr oni c w as m erel y res po nd in g to W al do ch ’s al le ga tions of pr oc ed ur al ir re gul ar ity

,

-9

-whi ch were ur ge d fo r th e fir st ti m e b e f o r e t h e di st ric t co ur t, an d th e co ur t ad m it te d

th e ev id en ce in or de r to fu ll y un de rs ta nd M e d t ro ni c’s in te rn al pr oc es se s. W hi le

rem ai ni ng co gn iz an t of th e ne ed to li m it dr awn ou t di sc ov ery to pr om ot e ER ISA’s

go al of “ in ex pe ns iv el y an d ex pe di ti ou sl y ” res ol vi ng di sp ut es , se e Perr y v. Si m pl ic it y Eng ’g, 90 0 F.2 d 96 3, 96 7 (6 th Ci r. 19 90 ), we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e

it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng Med tro ni c’s supp le m en ta l ev ide nc e fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e

of de te rm in in g t he pro pe r st an da rd of r ev ie w.

2.

W it h t he ai d of Erch ul ’s a ffi da vi t an d t he ex hi bi ts att ach ed to it , we con si de r

W al do ch ’s arg um en t t ha t pr oc ed ur al irr eg ul ari ti es ren de red th e ab us e-o f-d is cret io n

st an da rd in ap pr op ria te

. Mi no r pr oc ed ur al de fect s in th e rev ie w pr oc es s do no t carr y
si gn ifi can t wei gh t in ou r rev ie w of a pl an ad m in is tra to r’s de ci si on to de ny be ne fit s.

See Trs. of Elec tri ci an s’ Sal ary Defer ral Pl an v. W rig ht

, 68 8 F.3 d 92 2, 92 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ). To al te r th e st a n d a r d o f r e vi ew or affe ct ou r rev ie w un de r th e ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n st an da rd

, a pr oc ed ur al irr eg ul ari ty m u s t r i s e t o th e le ve l of a “ ‘seri ou s 3

br each of th e pl an tru st ee’s fid uc ia ry du ty to th e pl an be ne fic ia ry .’ ” Men z v. Pro ct er

& G am bl e Heal th Care Pl an , 52 0 F.3 d 86 5, 86 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Bu tt ram v.

Cen t. St at es , Se. & Sw. Areas Heal th & W el f a r e F u n d, 76 F.3 d 89 6, 90 0 (8 th Ci r.

In W oo v. Delu xe Co rp ., ou r ci rcu it he ld th at a le ss de fere nt ia l s t a n d a r d o f 3

rev ie w ap pl ie s whe n “(1 ) a p al pa bl e co nf li ct of in te res t or a se rio us pr oc ed ur al
irr eg ul ari ty ex is te d, whi ch (2 ) cau se d a se rio us br e a c h of th e pl an ad m in is tra to r’s
fid uc ia r y d u t y.” 14 4 F.3 d 11 57

, 11 60 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). The Su pr em e Co ur t in

Met ro po l i t a n Life In su ran ce Co

. v. Glen n, 55 4 U.S. 10 5, 11 5- 17 (2 00 8)

, in pa rt ab ro ga ti ng W oo , he ld th at a co nf li ct of in te res t sh ou ld be an al y zed as a fact or un de r th e ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd in st ead of ch an gi ng t h e s t a n d ard fro m ab us e of
di sc ret io n to a le ss de fere nt ia l st an da rd

. Our ci rcu it ha s no t de fin it iv el y res ol ve d th e im pa ct of Glen n on th e “

pr oc ed ur al ir re gu la ri ty co m

po ne nt of th e W oo sl id in g sc al e
ap pr oa ch .” See W ren n v. Pri nc ip al Life In s. Co

., 63 6 F.3 d 92 1, 92 4 n.6 (2 01 1)

. W e

ne ed no t res ol ve th is is su e he re be cau se W al do ch ha s fa il ed to es ta bl is h th at an y
pr oc ed ur al irr eg ul ari ti es ex is t i n t hi s ca se

.

-1 0-19 96 )). The pr oc ed ur al erro r m us t le av e “ th e co ur t wit h se rio us do ub ts as to whe th er

th e res ul t reac he d was th e pr od uc t of an arb it rary de ci si on or th e pl an ad m in is tra to r’s

whi m .” Bu tt ram , 76 F.3d at 9 00 ; s ee al so W rig ht , 68 8 F .3d at 9 27

.

W al do ch ’s pr oc ed ur al ir r eg ul ari ty arg um en t is two fo ld

. W al do ch be gi ns by

rel y in g on McKe eh an v. Ci gn a Life In su ran ce Co

., 34 4 F.3 d 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). In

McKe eh an , th e pl an gr an te d di sc ret io na ry , de ci si on -m ak in g au th or it y to th e pl an

sp on so r, bu t th e cl ai m ad m in is tra to r pu rp or te d to act as fin al de ci si on -m ak er on th e
cl ai m at is su e. See id

. at 79 2- 93

. Bec au se th e reco rd di d no t es ta bl is h th at th e cl ai m
ad m in is tra tor w as gr an te d dis cr et ion ar y , de ci si on -m ak in g au th or it y , th e co ur t he ld th e
cl ai m ad m in is tra to r’s de ci si on to de ny be ne fit s sh ou ld ha ve be en rev ie wed de no vo

. Id

. W al do ch co nt en ds th at Hart fo rd

, no t Med tro ni c, act ed as th e fin al de ci si on -m ak er

on hi s clai m

. Bec au se Hart fo rd was no t gran te d any au th or it y to m ak e fi na l b en efi t

de te rm in at io ns , it s de ni al de ci si on sh ou ld no t b e rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

W al do ch th en tu rn s hi s at te nt io n to Med tro ni c’s rev ie w. Acco rd in g to W al do ch

, no ne

of th e th ree in di vi du al s li st ed in th e Pl an —t he Sen io r VP of HR, VP of Co m pe ns at io n

an d Ben efi ts

, or Dire ct or of U.S. Ben efi ts

— r ev ie wed hi s cl ai m

. Mo re br oa dl y , W al do ch as se rts th at Med tro ni c fai le d to co nd uc t a m ean in gf ul rev ie w of hi s clai m ,

m erel y “ ru bb er-s ta m

pi ng ” Hart fo rd ’s de ci si on an d th us fai li ng to co m pl y wit h th e
“ful l an d fai r rev ie w” req ui red by 29 U.S.C. § 11 33 (2 ). To su m up W al do ch ’s

po si ti on , fir st

, Hart fo rd rev ie wed an d de ni ed hi s cl ai m , b u t t h e P la n di d no t ve st

Hart fo rd wit h su ch au th or it y

. Seco nd

, al th ou gh th e Pl an gr an te d Med tro ni c co m pl et e
di sc ret io na ry au th or it y to m ak e fin al be ne fit de te rm in at io ns , Med tr o ni c ne ve r

ex erci se d th at au th or it y

. He arg ue s th at b e c a u s e th e on ly en ti ty th at ex erci se d

au th or it y lac ke d i t, d e n ov o re vi ew is pro pe r. W e d is ag ree wi th W al do ch

.

Fi rs t, Med tro ni c’s arg um en t fo r th e ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da r d d o e s no t

de pe nd o n H a r t fo rd ’s au th or it y

. Unl ik e McKe eh an , Hart fo rd di d no t as se rt it was

act in g as th e fin al de ci si on -m ak er. The pr op er fo cu s of th is cas e is no t on Hart fo rd ’s

-1 1-st at us , bu t rat he r whe th er Med tro ni c co m pl ie d wit h th e Pl an ’s rev ie w pr oc ed ur es an d

whe th er t ho se pro ced ur es are s uf fic ie nt un de r ERISA.

Seco nd

, th e reco rd in di cat es th at Med tro ni c su ffi ci en tl y rev ie wed W al do ch ’s

cl ai m an d ren de red th e fin al de ci si on to de ny b en efi ts

. Ass um in g th at Med tro ni c’s

Pl an req ui red on e of th e th ree li st ed in di vi du al s to be di rect ly in vo lv ed in each cl ai m , Med tro ni c sa ti sf

ie d th is req ui rem en t. Med tro n i c pr od uc ed ev id en ce sh owi ng th at

th ro ug ho ut W al do ch ’s cl ai m s pr oc es s Med tro ni c’s cl ai m s an al y st Lau ren Erch u l

rep or te d di rect ly to Ro ge r Ch iz ek

, Med tro ni c’s Dire ct or of U.S. Ben efi ts

. In Erch ul ’s

a ffi da vi t, sh e de cl ared th at “ Mr. Ch iz ek m ad e th e fin al de ci si on to gr an t Mr.

W al do ch ’s ‘own oc cu p a t i o n’ LTD cl ai m in Ju ne 20 10 an d to de ny Mr. W al do ch ’s
‘any oc cu pa ti on ’ LTD cl ai m in Aug us t 20 11 an d Nov em b e r 2 0 11 .” App

. 14 52

. Att ach ed to the af

fi da vit w er e em ai ls be twee n Erch ul an d Hart fo rd ’s be ne fit s an al y st s. Sp eci fic al ly, as to th e “ an y oc cu pa ti on ” LTD cl ai m , Med tr o n i c pr od uc ed an em ai l

da te d Aug us t 16

, 20 11

, fro m H a r t f o r d to Erch ul

, st at in g th at Hart fo rd st il l

reco m m en de d up ho ld in g th e de ni al an d an em ai l da te d Aug us t 18

, 20 11

, fro m Erch ul

ba ck to Hart fo rd

, st at in g th at Med tro ni c ag reed wit h th e de ci si on

. App

. 11 75

, 14 80

. Thi s em ai l chai n, in co nju nc ti on wit h Erch ul ’s affi da vi t, al la y s any co nc ern th at th e

pr op er in di vi du al s at Med tro ni c were is ol at ed fro m th e fin al de ci si on on W al do ch ’s

cl ai m

.

Mo re b ro ad ly, Med tro ni c sa ti sf ie d it s ob li ga ti on to co nd uc t a m ean in gf ul

rev ie w an d ren de r a f

i na l de ci si on

. Med tro ni c was pe rm it te d to de le ga te cl ai m s

pr oc es si ng fu nc ti on s to Hart fo rd an d rel y on Hart fo rd ’s reas o ni ng wit ho ut

co m pr om is in g it s ob li ga ti on to pr ov id e a “ fu ll an d fai r rev ie w.” The McKe eh an co ur t

reco gn iz ed th at a pl an a d m in is tra to r m ay hi re a th ird pa rty “ to pe rfo rm m in is te ria l

cl ai m s pr oc es si ng fu nc ti on s.” See McKe eh an , 34 4 F.3 d at 79 2; se e al so 29 C.F.R. §

25 09 .75 -8

, at D-2 ; Ged de s v. Uni te d St affi ng All ia nc e Em p. Med

. Pl an , 46 9 F.3 d 91 9,

92 5 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (rea so ni n g t h a t a pl an ad m in is tra to r’s in he ren t di sc ret io n to

de le ga te “ is co nf

irmed an d ex te nd ed whe n th e au th or it y to de le ga te is ex pl ic it ly

-1 2-m en ti on ed in th e [p la n]”). Co ns is te nt wit h th e cl ai m s pr oc es si ng fu nc ti on reco gn iz ed

in McKe eh an , Hart fo rd pr oc es se d be nefi t ap pli ca tio ns an d re nde re d an initi al de ci si on

on cl ai m s. If th e pl an pa rti ci pa nt ap pe al ed a cl ai m de ni al

, Hart fo rd reco m m en de d a

de ci si on to Med tro ni c. Bu t, t he fin al de ci si on was M ed tro ni c’s to m ak e.

Med tro ni c’s Aug us t 18

, 20 11 em ai l to Hart fo rd en cap su la te s th is rel at io ns hi p.

Th at em ai l refl ect s Med tro ni c’s reco gn it io n bo th th at Hart fo rd ha d reco m m e n d e d

act io n an d th at Med tro ni c was ob li ga te d to ren de r th e fin al de ci si on , whi ch it di d. Cf.

Sh el by Cn ty. Heal th Care Co rp

. v. Majes ti c St ar Cas in o, 58 1 F.3 d 35 5, 36 5- 67 & n.3
(6 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (rea so ni ng th at ab us e-o f-d is cret io n rev ie w was im pr op er be cause pl an
ad m in is tra to r pl ay ed no ro le in t h e f i n a l de ci si on to de ny be ne fit s)

. In ad di ti on , Med tro ni c ha d on oc cas io n ex erci se d it s au th ority ove r H art fo rd by di rect in g Hart fo rd

to ch an ge it s re co m

m en de d c ou rs e o f act io n. On W al do ch ’s earl ie r ap pe al of “ own

oc cu pa ti on ” LTD be ne fit s, Med tro ni c reject ed Hart fo rd ’s reco m m en da ti on to up ho ld

it s de ni al

. Lik ewis e, in res po ns e to W al do ch ’s req ue st fo r reco ns id erat io n of th e fin al

“ an y oc cu pa ti on ” de ci si on , Med tro ni c in st ru ct ed Ha r t f o r d to ha ve Dr. Co op er

su pp le m en t hi s rep or t to fu ll y ad dr es s Dr. Seaq ui st ’s op in io ns

. A s fin al de ci si on

m ak er, Me dt ro ni c was pe rm it te d t o rel y on Hart fo rd ’s ana lysis to reac h i ts de ci si on
wit ho ut ha vi ng to du pl ic at e Hart fo rd ’s wor k

. S e e M c K e e ha n, 34 4 F.3 d at 79 2. A
pl an ad m in is tra to r hi res a cl ai m s ad m in is tra to r to st ream li ne be ne fit s rev ie w an d ad d

ex pe rti se to a pr oc es s th at can im po se bu rd en so m e req ui rem en ts

. Req ui rin g a pl an 4

ad m in is tra to r to du pl ic at e th e cl ai m ad m in is tra to r’s effo rts wou ld ne ga te m an y of th e
be ne fit s of hi rin g a th ird -p art y ex pe rt. Befo re ren de rin g it s fin al de ci si on , Med tro ni c

rece iv ed a fo ur -p ag e, ex ecu ti ve su m m ary fro m Hart fo rd al on g wit h Wa l do ch ’s

m ed ic al hi st or y

. W e ha ve no reas on to be li ev e th at Med tro ni c di d no t con si de r th is

in fo rm at io n p rio r to ren de rin g i ts de ci si on

.

In th e Serv ic es Agr eem en t, Hart fo rd es ti m at ed th at th e Pl an co ve red 25 ,00 0 4

el ig ib le em

pl oyees a nd th at it wou ld m an ag e 1 70 cla im s.

-1 3-To co nc lu d e , th e Pl an pr ov id ed Med tro ni c wit h “ co m pl et e an d to ta l

di sc ret io na ry au th or it y to in te rp ret an d adm in is te r” i ts pr ov is io ns

. Thi s lan gu ag e is

suf fi ci en t to tr igg er a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd of rev ie w, an d W al do ch

ha s fai le d to es ta bl is h a pr oc ed ur al irr eg ul ari ty th at wou ld al te r th is st an da rd or weig h

in ou r co ns id erat i o n u n d e r it

. W e no w co ns id er whe th er Med tro ni c ab us ed it s
di sc ret io n.

B.

Our rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n ex am in es whe th er th e pl an ad m in is tra to r’s

de ci si on “ ‘w as su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, m ean in g m or e th an a sc in ti ll a bu t

le ss th an a pr ep on de ran ce.’” Mi dg et t v. W as h. Grp

. In t’l Lon g Term Dis ab il it y Pl an , 5 6 1 F .3d 88 7, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Sch at z v. Mu t. of Om ah a In s. C o

. , 2 2 0

F.3 d 9 44 , 94 9 (8 th Cir . 20 00 )). A d eci si on “ su pp or te d by a reas on ab le ex pl an at io n

. . . sh ou ld no t be dis tu rb ed

, ev en th ou gh a di ffer en t reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n cou ld

ha ve be en m ad e.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Tho ug h we affo rd a pl an
ad m in is tra to r’s de ci si on gr eat de fere nc e, an ad m in is tra to r can no t si m pl y ig no re
rel ev an t ev id en ce or “ ‘arbi tra ril y refu se to cred it a cl ai m an t’s rel ia bl e ev id en ce.’” See

W il co x v. Lib ert y Life Ass ur an ce Co

., 55 2 F.3 d 69 3, 70 1 ( 8 t h C i r

. 2 0 09 ) (q uo ti ng

Bl ack & Deck er Di sa bi li ty Plan v. No rd , 53 8 U.S. 8 22 , 83 4 (2 00 3) ).

W al do ch ’s pri m ary co m

pl ai nt is th at Med tro ni c ig no red m at eri al ev id en ce i n
de nyin g h is cla im . Accor di ng to W al do ch

, Med tro ni c fai le d t o c on si de r th e im pa ct

hi s bl oo d su ga r va ria bi li ty an d hypo gl y cem ia un aware ne ss ha d on hi s co gn it iv e an d

be ha vi or al fu nc ti on s. He arg ue s th at Med tro ni c fo cu se d it s qu es ti on s to it s rev ie win g ph y si ci an s an d it s own in qu iry on on ly th e ph y si cal li m it at io ns hi s di ab et es im po se d.

W al do ch a s s e r ts th at hi s freq ue nt bl oo d su ga r va ria bi li ty cau se d hi s irr it ab il it y ,

an xi ou sn es s, in ab il it y to fo cu s, an d fat ig ue , an d th es e co nd it io ns ren de red hi m un ab le

to work

.

-1 4-T he ad m ini str at ive re co rd doe s not su pp or t W al do ch ’s po rtr ay al of Med tro ni c’s

rev ie w. Hart fo rd ack no wled ge d th at W al do ch ’s m ed ic al reco rd s in di cat ed a
flu ct ua ti on in bl oo d su ga r an d i n st an ces of hypo gl y cem ia un aware ne ss

. See, e.g ., App . 12 14 . This ev id en ce jus ti fie d Wald oc h’s “ own oc cu pa ti on ” LTD clai m

. Bu t,

Med tro ni c’s po si ti on th ro ug ho ut th e ap pe al was th at W al do ch fai le d to sh ow th at hi s
bl oo d su ga r va ria bi li ty cau se d hi s co gn it iv e an d be ha vi or al li m it at io ns , whi ch in tu rn

ren de red hi m co m

pl et el y un ab le to wor k. Med tro ni c req ue st ed Drs. Fo rd an , Mi el ke

,

an d Co op er to co ns id er whe th er W al do ch ’s rep or ts of un pr ed ic ta bl e ep is od es of lo w
bl oo d su ga r wou ld ren de r hi m un ab le to wor k. Dr. Fo rd an fo un d W al do ch ’s cl ai m s

to be un su pp or t e d a nd op in ed th at “ st res so rs fro m wor k are affe ct in g hi s di ab et es

co nt ro l, no t th e ot he r way aro un d.” App

. 13 20

. Dr. Co op er si m il arl y fo un d

W al do ch ’s su bjec ti ve rep or ts to be su pp or te d by cl in ic al ev id en ce an d n o te d th at

reas on ab le acco m

m od at io ns co ul d be m ad e at wor k to acco un t fo r da il y ep is od es of
hypo gl y cem ia

. App

. 13 38

, 13 40 -4 1. Eve n Dr. Kud va , on e of W al do ch ’s ph y si ci an s,

in di c at ed th at W al do ch co ul d fu nc ti on wit h si gn ifi can t acco m m od at io ns in a

“ sym pa th et ic wor kp la ce.” App

. 13 36

. In th e en d, Med tro ni c was no t pe rs ua de d th at

Wa l do ch es ta bl is he d hi s rep or te d no n- ph y si cal sym pt om s en ti tl ed hi m to “an y

oc cu pa ti on ” LTD be ne fit s. Aft e r c o n s i de rin g al l of th e ev id en ce, Med tro ni c was

en ti tl ed to m a k e th is de ci si on , se e McGe e v. Rel ia nc e St an da rd Life In s. Co

., 36 0

F.3 d 92 1, 92 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ It is no t un reas on ab le fo r a pl an ad m in is tra to r to de ny
be ne fit s ba se d up on a la ck of ob jecti ve ev id en ce.”)

, ev en th ou gh a di ffer en t de ci si on

co ul d h av e b een m ad e, se e Mi dg et t, 5 61 F.3d at 8 97

.

W al do ch ’s rem ai ni ng arg um en ts al so la ck m eri t. W al do ch co nt en ds th at

Med tro ni c sh ou l d h a v e g iv en m or e weig ht to th e ALJ’s fin di ng s in th e SSA

pr oc eed in g. Hart fo rd reco gn iz ed W al do ch ’s SSA a w a r d as rel ev an t ev id en ce, bu t

Med tro ni c an d Hart fo rd co nc lu de d th at th e SSA de ci si on w a s no t co nt ro ll in g.

Bec au se SSA di sa bi li ty award s are no t bi nd in g on ERISA pl an ad m in is tra to rs , w e

fin d no erro r in Med tro ni c’s act io ns

. See Co ke r v. Met ro

. Life In s. Co

., 28 1 F.3 d 79 3,

79 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). W al do ch al so arg ue s Hart fo rd ’s EAR was fla wed

. He co nt en ds

-1 5-th at th e po si ti on s li st ed were to o si m il ar to hi s po si ti on at Med tro ni c an d th us wou ld

crea te si m il ar st res s- in du ced pr ob le m s. W e se e no fla w in Med tro ni c rel y in g on th e

EAR to co nc lu de th at W al do ch co ul d ob ta in a po si ti on si m il ar to hi s at Med tro ni c in

a lo wer-s tre ss , se de nt ary en vi ro nm en t. In fact

, th e res ul ts fro m th e EAR co ns ti tu te d

ad di ti on al ev id en ce s up po rti ng it s d en ia l of ben efi ts

. See Green v. Unio n Sec. In s.,

64 6 F .3d 10 42 , 10 52 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Our ro le in rev ie win g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n is no t to “ weig h th e ev id en ce

an ew” an d ren de r a de ci si on

. Id

. at 10 53

. W e on ly as k whe th er a reas on ab le pe rs on

co ul d reac h th e de ci si on Med tro ni c reac he d an d whe th er th e de ci si on was su pp or te d
by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i n t h e r e co rd

. See Mi dg et t, 56 1 F.3 d at 89 7. Und er th is

st an da rd

, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Med tro ni c di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n

in de nyin g Wald oc h’s cl ai m for “ an y oc cu pa ti on ” LTD ben efi ts

.

III.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-