## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 09-3561

________________ Michael Shane Atkins, Appellant,

v. Prudential Insurance Company; UNITRIN, Inc., Long Term Disability Plan, Appellees. *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________ Submitted: September 21, 2010 Filed: December 13, 2010

________________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

________________ PER CURIAM.
Michael Shane Atkins filed a complaint against The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) and Unitrin, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan (Plan), pursuant to the Employee Retirement Inco me Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, claiming that they abused their discretion in discontinuing1 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
-2- Atkins's disability benefits. The district court 1 first denied Atkins's motion to compel discovery and later dismissed Atkins's claims with prejudice. Atkins appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.
Atkins was employed by Unitrin, Inc., (Unitr in) as a field insurance agent. His job was classified as light duty, and his job duties included regularly soliciting business from existing policyholders, activel y seeking to gain new policyholders, collecting premiums, and delivering newly issued policies. He participated in Unitrin's disability plan. Prudential is both the insurer of the Plan and the Plan's claims administrator. Prudential had the sole discretion to determine eligibility and entitlement to benefits in accordance with th e terms of the Plan. Under the Plan, a person is disabled when Prudential determin es that the person is "unable to perform the material and substantial duties of [h is] own occupation due to [his] sickness or injury" and "[has] a 20% or more loss in [his] indexed monthly earnings due to that sickness or injury." (App. at 535.) The Pl an further notes that "[a]fter 24 months of payments, [a person is] disabled when Prudential determines that due to the same sickness or injury, [he is] unable to performthe duties of any gainful occupation for which [he is] reasonably fitted by education, training, or experience." (Id. )
In August 2005, Atkins informed Prudentia l that he was unable to work because of pain in his neck and right shoulder and numbness in his left arm and hand, and he began to receive short term disability (STD) benefits. Prudential decided to discontinue Atkins's disability benefits af ter February 12, 2006, because it determined that Atkins was not eligible for long term disability (LTD) benefits after that date.-3- Between June 2005 and April 2006, the r ecord reflects that Atkins visited numerous doctors to address multiple physical complaints. In June 2005, he received epidural steroid injections to address n eck pain resulting from cervical disc disease. In mid-August 2005, Dr. Shailesh Vora notedthat Atkins had been diagnosed with neck pain and depression and directed hi m to remain off work until September 1, 2005, although Dr. Vora noted that Atkins's prognosis for returning to work was "good." (App. at 319.) Throughout the time pe riod that followed, Dr. Vora continued to recommend that Atkins remain off wo rk while he underwent testing. Atkins eventually received surgery to remove a cyst from his wrist in January 2006.
Initially when Atkins informed Prudential that he was unable to work in August 2005, Prudential began to make short term disability payments to Atkins. Over the next several months, multiple register ed nurses employed by Prudential reviewed Atkins's file and concluded that his physical examinations did not suggest that he was unable to work, but Prudential continued to renew his benefits while it gathered more medical information. On January 9, 2006, Prudential informed Atkins that it would begin reviewing his claim as a claim for LTD benefits.
On January 26, 2006, Atkins informed Prudential that the next day he was having wrist surgery. Prudential approved LTD benefits for Atkins from January 28, 2006, to February 12, 2006, based on his wrist surgery. When it approved the LTD benefits, it explained that this was only b ecause of his wrist condition. In a letter dated February 9, 2006, Prude ntial stated that it would discontinue his LTD benefits as of February 13, 2006, as th ere was nothing in Atkins's file to indicate that he would be unable to carry out his job duties after that date.
In April 2006, Atkins appealed Prudential's decision to discontinue his LTD benefits, asserting that he was now suffe ring from internal bleeding, that he was constantly in pain, and that he had co mplications with medication management. Following this, Prudential submitted Atkins's claim file to three independent-4- physicians for review: a physician who sp ecialized in occupational medicine, a psychiatrist, and a neurologist. The thr ee physicians all opined that there was no physical reason Atkins could not carry out his job duties. Following the review of Atkins's file by the independent physicians , in July 2006, Prudential concluded that it was appropriate to uphold its denial of LTD benefits effective February 13, 2006. In December 2006, Atkins appealed the deni al decision. Prudential then referred Atkins's file for review by a neurologist who did not find any ne urological basis for impairment. Prudential again upheld its denial of benefits and informed Atkins of this on January 16, 2007.
Following Prudential's decision, Atkins filed this lawsuit against Prudential, arguing that Prudential should not have discontinued his LTD benefits. Initially Atkins filed a motion to compel discovery, which the district court denied. Atkins wanted Prudential to fully and completely respond to his broad interrogatories and requests for production of materials which existed outside of the administrative record. Atkins asserted that Prudential's dua l role as both the insurer of the Plan and as the claims administrator created a conf lict of interest, and he sought discovery in order to determine the nature and extent of the conflict of interest. In denying the discovery motion, the district court agreed that Prudential had a conflict of interest but held that the administrative record itself should be a sufficient source for finding any procedural irregularities in Prudential' s handling and decision-making on Atkins's claim which, when co mbined with the existing conflict of interest, would demonstrate an abuse of Prudential's disc retion. Atkins then filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court held that Prudential di d not abuse its discretion in denying disability benefits to Atkins because Prudential's d ecision that he was not disabled under the Plan's definition was supported by substan tial evidence and was therefore reasonable. The district court then dismissed Atkins's claims with prejudice.
Atkins appeals, arguing that the distri ct court should have granted both his motion to compel discovery and his motion for summary judgment.-5- First, Atkins contends that the district court erred in failing to compel discovery. We review a district court's refusal to compel discovery fo r abuse of discretion. Jones v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. , 615 F.3d 941, 945 (8th Cir. 2010). Atkins argues that we should apply a de novo standard of review to this i ssue, but he cites nothing to support this, and the standard of review is settled.
"In ERISA cases, the general rule is thatreview is limited to evidence that was before the administrator." Id. Atkins asserts that discove ry is necessary to establish Prudential's decision-making process. Atkins sought materials regarding how disability claims are adjusted, whether th ere were additional oral communications, how claims like Atkins's have been handled in other cases, and the procedures Prudential has followed to ensure consis tent decision making in similar cases.
The Supreme Court has recently noted th at a plan administrator who (like Prudential here) is both an in surer of the Plan and a claim administrator operates under a conflict of interest. Metr o. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn , 554 U.S. 105, 114 (2008) (noting that while it is slightly different when a third party and not the employer acts as an insurer and claims administrator, "for ER ISA purposes a conflict exists" for the third party). We have not yet decided whether Glennaffects discovery limitations under ERISA, see Chronister v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 563 F.3d 773, 775 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009), and Atkins's argument that Glenncontrols the outcome of this decision is unconvincing. This case is comparable to Jones , in which we held that because ReliaStar conceded that it was both insurer and administrator of the plan and because the administrative record was sufficient to pe rmit a fair evaluation of the decision, the district court did not abuse its discreti on in denying Jones's request for discovery. Jones , 615 F.3d at 945.

Atkins asserts that Prudential's conflict of interest is sufficient to justify the need for greater discovery. However, here, like in Jones , the administrative record is sufficient to permit a fair evaluation of Prudential's decision. Seeid. Thus, Atkins has-6- failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion in failing to compel discovery. See id. at 944.

Second, Atkins asserts that the district court erred in holding that Prudential did not abuse its discretion in denying Atkins LTD benefits. "We treat the district court's grant of judgment on the administrative record as a form of summary judgment and review it de novo , 'viewing the case from the same position as the district court.'" Riddell v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 457 F.3d 861, 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Ferrari v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n , 278 F.3d 801, 805 (8th Cir. 2002)). "Under this standard of review, we reverse the plan administrator's decision only if it is arbitrary and capricious." Jacks on v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 530 F.3d 696, 701 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotati on marks and alteration omitted).
"When a plan administrator offers a reasonable explanation for its decision, supported by substantial evidence, 'it should not be disturbed.'" Ratliff v. Jefferson Pilot Fin. Ins. Co. , 489 F.3d 343, 348 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fletcher-Merrit v. NorAm Energy Corp. , 250 F.3d 1174, 1180-81 (8th Cir. 2001)). "The discretionary decision of a plan administrator is not unreasonable merely because a 'different, reasonable interpretation could have been made.'" Id. (quoting Parkman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 439 F.3d 767, 773 (8th Cir. 2006)).
The district court correctly noted that Prudential made a thorough review of Atkins's claims and his file. We have held that "'[i]t is not unreasonable for a plan administrator to deny benefits based upon a lack of objective evidence.'" Jackson , 530 F.3d at 701 (quoting Groves v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. , 438 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir. 2006)). Throughout the review and appeal process, Prudential consulted numerous doctors and nurses, both internal and external, in reviewing Atkins's file and his claim for benefits. Those medical professionals found no objective evidence in Atkins's file to support his claim for benefits. This l ack of objective evidence severely undercuts-7- Atkins's claim that he was entitled to di sability benefits, and it was not unreasonable for Prudential to deny Atkins benefits based on the lack of objective evidence.

Atkins cites Glennin noting that a court should consider an administrator's conflict of interest when evaluating the administrator's decision to deny benefits. While this is true, a conflict of interest alone is insufficient to find that Prudential abused its discretion in denying Atkins bene fits. The conflict of interest is one of several factors to consider and may serve as a tiebreaker if the other factors are closely balanced. See Glenn , 554 U.S. at 117 ("[W]hen judges review the lawfulness of benefit denials, they will ofte n take into account of several different considerations of which a conflict of interest is one. . . . In such instances, any one factor will act as a tiebreaker when the other factor s are closely balanced."). No factors in this case were so closely balanced such that Prudential's conflict of interest would act as a tiebreaker to result in an abuse of discretion by Pruden tial in its consideration of Atkins's claim.

Finally, Atkins asserts that Prudential vi olated the terms of its policy and the applicable law by terminating his LTD be nefits without showing some significant change in the information it had. Howe ver, Prudential only extended Atkins's STD benefits while it was reviewi ng his file and medical claims. Prudential's decision to review Atkins's claim as a claim for LTD benefits was subject to medical review. When Prudential approved Atkins's claim for LTD benefits effective January 26, 2006, for the wrist surgery, it made it clear that the benefits were only granted through February 12, 2006, to permit recovery time. This is not a case in which a plan administrator found a claimant disabled fo r an extended durati on and then overruled that decision years later as in the cases Atkins cites. Cf. McOsker v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. , 279 F.3d 586, 589 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding th e district court erred in granting judgment to the insurance company when it determined that the plaintiff was not disabled after paying disability benefits for two years).-8- Prudential performed a very thorough analys is of Atkins's file and claim, and we cannot say that its decision to deny Atki ns benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The district court did not err in granting judgment to Prudential on the administrative record.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________