H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew * J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4740 M OI RA GO LETZ, A ppel l ant

v. P RUDENTI AL I NSURANCE COM P ANY OF AM ERI CA APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

F OR THE DI S TRI CT OF DEL AW ARE ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 00351) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay10, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and H I L L M A N D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 7, 2010)

OP I NI ONG olet z i s fi ft y -tw o an d h as a hi gh schoo l edu cat i on . S he b egan w orki ng as a 1 ful l - t i m e cus t om ers ervi ce r epr es ent at i ve i n 1997. She w as l at erpr om ot ed t o car dm ember advoca cys peci al i s t , butw enton di s abi l i tyl eave i n M ay2000 due t o cons t antpai n i n her n e c k , h a n d s , a rm s , e lb o w s , a n d o th e r j o in ts . S h e h a s y e t to re tu rn to w o rk . B an k O n e p u rch ase d the P lan f rom P rud en ti al i n 2 0 0 0 fo r th e b en ef ito f B an k O n e’s 2 re g u la r, s a la ri e d , a n d c o m m is s io n e d e m p lo y e e s . “ G a in f u l o c c u p a tio n ” w a s d e f

in e d a s “ a n o c c u p a tio n , inc lu d in g se lf e m p lo ym e n t, 3 thati s orcan be expec t ed t o pr ovi de . . . an i ncome equal t o atl eas t[70% ] of -2- B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge M o ir a G o let z a p p ea ls from an o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t t o the P rud en ti al Insu ran ce C o m p an yo f A m erica (“ P rud en ti al”) o n G o let z’s cl ai m forbenef

i t s underthe Em pl oy ee Ret i r ementI ncome Secur i tyA ctof 1974, 29 U. S . C. § 1 0 0 1 , e ts e q . ( “ ERI S A” ) . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I . Backg r ound L ik e m o s t E R IS A c a s e s , th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e a re e x te n s iv e a n d c o n v o lu te d . For tunat el y , the l egal ques t i ons pr es ent ed i n thi s cas e r equi r e onl yan overvi ew of the b a c k g ro u n d a n d p ro c e d u ra l h isto ry . In 2 0 0 0 , G o letz f irst a p p lied f

o r d isa b ili tyb e n e f

its 1 underthe t erm s of a l ong- t erm di s abi l i typl an ( the “Pl an”) admi ni s t er ed byPrudent i al 2 and off er ed byherempl oy er . Prudent i al det erm i ned thatG ol et z qual i fi ed foran i ni t i al tw e n ty -f o u r m o n th s o f

b e n e f its a n d p a id h e r c laim . A f ter tw e n ty -f

o u r m o n th s, in o rd e r to cont i nue r ece i vi ng benef i t s underthe Pl an, G ol et z had t o m eeta s tr i ct ers t andar d— s he w a s e n tit led to c o n tin u e re c e iv in g b e n e f its o n lyif

h e r c o n d iti o n h a d re n d e re d h e r “ u n a b le t o per form the dut i es of anygai nful occupa t i on forw hi ch [s he w as ] r eas onabl yfi t t ed by 3[ e m p lo y e e ’s] in d e x e d m o n th lye a rn in g s w ith in 1 2 m o n th s o f [ e m p lo y e e ’s] re tu rn to w o rk .” (A . a t 8 7 .) A phy s i atr i s ti s a medi cal doct ors peci al i zi ng i n pai n m anage m entand r es t or i ng and 4 e n h a n c in g f

u n c tio n to th o s e w ith p a in a n d /o r i m p a ir m e n ts . -3- educa t i on, tr ai ni ng orexper i ence . ” ( A . at87. ) Prudent i al det erm i ned thats he w as c a p a b le o f

g a in f u l o c c u p a tio n a n d d e n ie d h e r c la im . A f ter e x h a u stin g h e r a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies , G o letz f iled th is E R IS A a c tio n to r ecove rbenef

i t s underthe Pl an. T he evi dence cons i s t ed of r eport s and r ecor ds fr om s ever al expert s , i ncl udi ng thr ee phy s i ci ans w ho tr eat ed G ol et z— D r . G l en R ow e, an or thopedi s t ; D r . E r i c Tam es i s , an orthopedi s tand rheumat ol ogi s t ; and D r . M i chae l B ra d ley, a p rim a ryc a re p h y sic ian

— a lo n g w ith D r. P a trick R o w e , a P ru d e n tial c o n su ltan t; D r . Pet erB ander a, a phy s i atr i s t hi r ed byPrudent i al t o per form an i ndepende ntm edi cal 4 exam; and voca t i onal cons ul t antK athl een K out ch. D r s . R ow e and Tam es i s eac h i s s ued r eport s w hi ch corr obor at ed G ol et z’ s s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s of pai n. D r . B ander a, by contr as t , concl uded thatG ol et z had “ m ul t i pl e s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s w hi ch [di d] not c o rre late o b

jec tiv e ly ,” a n d o p in e d th a t G o letz c o u ld “ re tu rn to a n o c c u p a tio n th a t w o u ld a d h e re ” to c e rt a in re s tr ic tio n s . (Id . at 20 3 . ) T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatPrudent i al had “i m perm i s s i bl yus ed evi dence that su p p o rte d th e d e n ial o f

p lain tiff ’s b e n e f

its w h ile ig n o rin g o r f

a ili n g to sa tisf

a c to rily expl ai n i t s r ej ect i on of evi dence s uppor t i ng the aw ar d of s uch bene fi t s . ” G ol et zv. P r udent i alI

ns . C o. of

A m er i ca , C iv., 4 2 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 4 0 , 5 5 3 (D . D el. 2 0 0 6 ) ( G olet z I ).-4-

In d e e d , in its le tters to G o letz b e f o re th is a c tio n w a s f

iled , P ru d e n tial m a d e c lea r th a t it s d e c isio n w a s b a se d lar g e lyo n D r. B a n d e ra ’s r e p o rt a n d d id n o t ex p lain w h yit p a id little heed t o the m at eri al s subm i t t ed b yD rs . R ow e and T am esi s. I n addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatPrudent i al had s el ect i vel yi gnor ed the a d v ice o f its o w n c o n su ltan t— D r. H o w e — b yf a ili n g to h ire a n e w v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt to eval uat e G ol et z, and i ns t ead r el i ed on K ouch’ s pr i orvocat i onal r eport , w hi ch w as i s s ued in 2 0 0 2 . T h e C o u rt a lso f a u lted P ru d e n tial f

o r f a ili n g to e x p lain w h e th e r a n d h o w its d e ter m in a tio n sq u a re d w ith th e N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 d e c isio n o f th e S o c ial S e c u rity A d m in istra tio n (“ S S A ” ) g ra n tin g d isa b ili tyb e n e f its to G o letz . T h e S S A f o u n d th a t G o letz w as di s abl ed bec aus e s he w as unabl e “t o engage i n anys ubs t ant i al , gai nful act i vi tyby rea so n o f a n ym ed icall yd eterm inab le ph y sical or m en tal im p airm en t. ” (A . at 21 9 . ) Prudent i al onl ybr i efl ym ent i oned the SSA ’ s deci s i on, expl ai ni ng, i n i t s M ar ch 15, 2004 l ett erdeny i ng G ol et z’ s thi r d r eques tforr econs i der at i on, that“Prudent i al det erm i nes e l i g i b i l i ty f

o r[ l o n g t e r m d i s a b i l i ty] b e n e f i t s b a s e d o n th e t e r m s o f th e G r o u p P o l i c y, s epar at e fr om the cr i t er i a us ed bythe Soci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on. ” (Id . at 15 6 . ) Th e Di s tr i c tCo u rtf

o u n d th a tth e P l a n g a v e P ru d e n t i a l d i s c r e t i o n o v e rth e c l a i m, butthatPrudent i al had a pot ent i al confl i ctof i nt er es tbeca us e i tboth det erm i nes w hether an empl oy ee i s el i gi bl e forbenef i t s and pay s benef

i t s outof i t s ow n pocket . T hus , the C our tus ed the now - di s cr edi t ed s l i di ng s cal e appr oach a nd concl uded that“a he i ght ened arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous r evi ew [w as ] appr opr i at e. ” G o le tz I, 4 2 5 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 5 0 -5 1 .-5-

R ul i ng on the part i es ’ cr os s - m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent , the C our thel d that Prudent i al ’ s deni al of bene fi t s w as arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous and, acc or di ngl y , gr ant ed s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to G o le tz a n d d ir e c te d th a t th e c a s e b e “ re m a n d e d ” to P ru d e n tia l. O n re m a n d , P ru d e n tial h ire d tw o a d d iti o n a l in d e p e n d e n t ex p e rts— D r. R e yn o ld K arr , a rheumat ol ogi s t , and D r . R . D avi d B auer , an orthopaedi c s ur geon— t o eval uat e the evi dence . D r . K arranal y zed G ol et z’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans ’ m at er i al s and det erm i ned that “M s . G ol et z does nothave f unct i onal i m pai r m ent s r el at i ng t o i nfl amm at oryarthr i t i s of a defi ned rheumat ol ogi c condi t i on fr om 10/ 30/ 2002 forw ar d. ” ( A . at374. ) D r . B auer expl ai ned thatG ol et z had “ s i gni fi cants ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s w i thoutobj ect i ve fi ndi ngs . ” (Id . at367. ) Prudent i al al s o hi r ed Sue H ow ar d, a voca t i onal expert , w ho i dent i fi ed s ever al empl oym entopt i ons forG ol et z and f ound that“[a ] l l of [thes e] occupa t i ons exi s ti n the D o v e r, D e la w a re M S A ,” w h e re G o le tz liv e s . (Id . at37 8-79.) B ased on tho se opini on s, P ru d e n tia l a g a in d e n ie d G o le tz ’s c la im f o r b e n e f its . G olet z and P rudenti al then returned to cou rtw here bo th p art i es agai n fil ed crossm o tio n s f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T h is tim e , the D istric t C o u rt ru led in f a v o r o f P ru d e n tial, fi ndi ng thati t s det erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. G ol et z t i m el yappea l ed. T h is c a se b o ils d o w n to th re e q u e stio n s. F irst, h a s G o letz w a iv e d h e r a rg u m e n ts aboutw hetherthe l anguage of the Pl an ent i t l es Prudent i al t o r evi ew underan arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous s t andar d and w hetherw e s houl d cont i nue t o us e thats t andar d i n l i ghtof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatPrudent i al ’ s fi r s tdet erm i nat i on w as arbi tr aryand-6-

capr i ci ous ? T he ans w eri s y es . Second, di d Prudent i al payadequa t e hee d t o the opi ni ons of G ol et z’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans ? A gai n, the ans w eri s y es . T hi r d, does Prudent i al ow e any a d d iti o n a l ex p lan a tio n a s to th e a p p a re n t in c o n sis ten c yb e tw e e n its d e ter m in a tio n in th is c a se a n d th e S S A ’s r e late d N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 d e c isio n f in d in g th a t G o letz w a s e n tit led to S o c ia l S e c u ri ty b e n e f

its ? T h e a n s w e r i s n o .

I I . D i s cus s i on T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 a n d 2 9 U .S .C . § 1132( f) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over a n a p p e a l f

ro m a g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Jacobs C ons tr uctors , I nc. v. N P S E ner gy Ser vs . , I nc. , 2 6 4 F . 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). S u m m aryjud g m en t i s ap p rop ri ate if the re i s no g enu i ne is sue of

m at eri al factand the m ov i ng partyi s ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m a tte r o f la w . Id . (ci t i ng F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c) ). “In m aking t his determ i nati on , w e m ust cons i derthe evi dence i n the r ecor d i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng party . ” Id .

“ [ A ]n E R IS A p lan a d m in istra to r w ith d isc re tio n a rya u th o rityto in terp re t a p lan is ent i t l ed t o defe r ence i n exer ci s i ng thatdi s cr et i on. ” C on kri gh tv. From m ert , ___ U . S. ___, 2010 W L 1558979, at*3 ( A pr . 21, 2010) . I n acc or di ng thatdi s cr et i on, w e r evi ew an a d m in is tr a to r's d e c is io n s u n d e r a n a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s s ta n d a rd . D or os how v. H ar t f or d Li f e & A cc. I

ns . C o. , 5 7 4 F .3 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). W e h a d p re v io u sly appl i ed a he i ght ened f

or m of arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous r evi ew forthos e ca s es i n w hi ch anT h e P lan g ives P rud en ti al th e k ind o f d iscreti o n that g en era ll ytr igg ers a n arb itrary 5 and capr i ci ous s t andar d of r evi ew . T he Pl an pr ovi des thatthe bene fi tm us tbe pai d “w hen Prudent i al det erm i nes , ” ( A . at87) , and the Pl an makes cl earthatcert ai n of the evi dence m u s t b e “ s a tis f

a c to ry to P ru d e n tia l,” (A . a t 9 9 .). -7- adm i nis trat or act s und er a confli ctof int eres t , usi ng a “sl i ding scal e” app roach t o ad dress h o w m u ch d ef

ere n ce sh o u ld p rop erlyb e a ff o rde d to a c o n fli cted ad m inistrator’s d e te rm in a tio n . See Post v. H ar t f or d I ns . C o. , 5 0 1 F . 3 d 1 5 4 , 1 6 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). H o w ev er, i n the w ake of Metr opol i tan Li f e I ns ur ance Co. v. G l enn , ___ U . S. ___, 128 S. C t . 2343 (20 0 8 ) (“Me t L ife ” ), o u r s lid in g s c a le a p p ro a c h is n o lo n g e r t e n a b le . Es tat e of Schw i ng v. The Li l l y H eal th P lan , 5 6 2 F .3 d 5 2 2 , 5 2 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). N everthel es s , court s m us ts t i l l cons i derconfl i ct s of i nt er es ti n eval uat i ng w hether a n a d m in is tr a to r's d e n ia l o f b e n e f its is a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s . Id . a t 5 2 6 . Met Li f e does nots ubs t ant i al l yaff

ectouranal y s i s of Prudent i al ’ s det erm i nat i on. I ndeed, w e r eac h the s ame concl us i on byr evi ew i ng Prudent i al ’ s det erm i nat i on underan arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous s t andar d, bear i ng i n m i nd Prudent i al ’ s confl i ctof i nt er es t , as the D i s tr i ctC our tr eac hed by a p p lyin g a “ h e ig h te n e d a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s ” s ta n d a rd . G ol et z ar gues , forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have appl i ed a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew beca us e the l anguage i n the Pl an does notm ake c l ear thatPrudent i al has di s cr et i on. G ol et z cont ends thatthi s ar gum enthas notbeen w ai ved 5 b e c a u se w e a re a lw a y s f re e to c o n sid e r o u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew ; h o w e v e r, th e iss u e h e re is n o t ou r st an d ard fo r rev iew ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n , b u t r athe r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’sT h e D istric t C o u rt’s f irst o p in io n , in f

a v o r o f G o letz , cite s o u r o p in io n in Skr etvedt v. 6 E . I . D uP ontde N

em ours and C o. , 268 F. 3d 167 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , i n w hi ch w e hel d that “ [ w ]e h a v e lo n g re c o g n ize d th a t in th e a n a lo g o u s a re a o f d isa b ili tyb e n e f

its det erm i nat i ons underthe Soci al Secur i tyA ct , the opi ni ons of a c l ai m ant ' s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an[s ] ar e ent i t l ed t o s ubs t ant i al and att i m es even c ontr ol l i ng w ei ght . ” Id . at184 -8- s t andar d forr evi ew i ng the Pl an. “[A ] bs entexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s , an i s s ue notr ai s ed i n di s tr i ctcourtw i l l notbe hea r d on appea l . ” U .S . v . A n th o ny D e ll'A q u illa , E n te rs . & Subs i di ar i es , 1 5 0 F . 3 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). A l so w ai ved i s G olet z’s argum ent that, becau se Prude nti al ’s han dli ng of thi s case has al r eadybeen f

aul t ed once bythe D i s tr i ctC ourt , w e s houl d now for ego ext endi ng any defe r ence t o Prudent i al ’ s deci s i on and s ubj ecti tt o de novo re v iew . T h is p o sitio n w a s a ll butr ej ect ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n C onkr ight , i n whi c h the Cour te xp l a i ne d tha tER I SA pl an admi ni s tr at or s “make m i s t akes ” and thata “s i ngl e hones tm i s t ake i n pl an i nt erpr et at i on” does notj us t i fy“s tr i ppi ng the admi ni s tr at orof . . . defe r ence fors ubs equent re la te d in te rp re ta tio n s o f th e p la n .” 2 0 1 0 W L 1 5 5 8 9 7 9 , a t * 3 . N ext , G ol et z ar gues thatPrudent i al i m pr oper l ydeni ed di s abi l i tybenef i t s , w hether anal y zed unde ra de novo orarbi tr aryand capr i ci ous s t andar d of r evi ew . A s des cr i bed above, w e nee d onl yconce r n our s el ves w i th w hetherPrudent i al ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Pl an w as arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous ; w e conc l ude thati tw as not . G ol et z cont ends , how ever , t hat Prudent i al fai l ed t o compl yw i th the r emand or der , w hi ch r equi r ed Prudent i al t o gi ve “a t the veryl eas ta thor ough and ful l ys uppor t ed di s cus s i on of w hy[G ol et z’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans ’ ] concl us i ons w er e r ej ect ed. ” G olet z I, 4 5 2 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 5 2 . It is d if f icu lt 6(in ter n a l cita tio n s a n d q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s in c e re jec ted th is p o sit ion , h o lding instead that “c o u rt s h av e n o w arran t t o req u ir e a d m inistrators aut om at i cal l yt o acc or d s peci al w ei ghtt o the opi ni ons of a c l ai m ant ’ s phy s i ci an. ” B lack & D ecker D isabil i t

y P lan v. N

ord , 538 U . S. 822, 834 ( 2003) ( expl ai ni ng that , unl i ke S o c ial S e c u rity , w h ich is a n “ o b lig a to ry , n a tio n w id e S o c ial S e c u rityp ro g ra m , [n ]o th in g in ER I SA r e qu i r e s e mpl oy e r s t o e s t a bl i s h e mpl oy e e be ne fi t s pl a ns . N ordo e s ER I SA m andat e w hatki nd of bene fi t s empl oy er s m us tpr ovi de i f theychoos e t o have s uch a p lan” ). -9- to im a g in e h o w P ru d e n tia l c o u ld h a v e b e e n m o re re s p o n s iv e to th e C o u rt ’s in s tru c tio n s . A s Prudent i al expl ai ned i n i t s A ugus t17, 2006 l ett ert o G ol et z, the C our t“not ed that [Prudent i al ’ s ] det erm i nat i on l ett er s di d notdi s cus s the opi ni ons of M s . G ol et z’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans ” and “ not ed thatthe s peci al i tyof the I M E phy s i ci an ( phy s i atr i s t ) w as notthe sam e a s M s. G o let z’ [ sic] trea ti n g p h y sici an s (ortho p ed ic or rh eu m atolo g y ). ” (A . at 38 3 . ) I n r es pons e, Prudent i al r et ai ned D r s . K arrand B auer , w hos e s peci al i t i es ar e the s ame as G ol et z’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans , and w ho both anal y zed the medi cal evi dence and conc l uded th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e o f s ig n if ic a n t f u n c tio n a l im p a ir m e n t. Fi nal l y , G ol et z ar gues thatPrudent i al fai l ed t o expl ai n w hyi t s det erm i nat i on w as in c o n sis ten t w ith th e S S A ’s r e late d N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 d e c isio n . A t f irst b lu sh , this is tr oubl i ng beca us e Prudent i al det erm i ned, i n contr as tt o the SSA ’ s fi ndi ng, notonl ythat G ol et z w as capa bl e of s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi ty , butthats he w as capa bl e of e arni ng 70% of her“i ndexed mont hl yearni ngs . ” N ot abl y , the SSA w as pr es ent ed w i th di ffe r ent evi dence than w as avai l abl e t o Prudent i al . T he SSA appar ent l ycons i der ed the opi ni ons of D r . T amesi s and D r . R ow e, al ong w i th thatof N ancyH art er , a voca t i onal expert , butt he-10-

SSA ’ s det erm i nat i on l acke d the bene fi tof the expe r t s pr ovi ded byPrudent i al i n the mat t er b e f o re u s . G olet z ci t es Met

Li f e fors uppor t . I n Me t L ife , the Supr eme C our taff i r m ed the deci s i on of the Si xth C i r cui toverturni ng a pl an admi ni s tr at or ’ s det erm i nat i on thatw as i ncons i s t entw i th a dec i s i on i s s ued bythe SSA gr ant i ng di s abi l i tybenef i t s . 128 S. C t . at 2 3 4 3 . T h e C o u rt d id n o t, ho w e v e r, h o ld th a t a p lan a d m in istra to r m u st a lw a y s re c o n c ile its det erm i nat i ons w i th t hos e of the SSA . I ns t ead, the C our tcons i der ed an i ncons i s t ency b e tw e e n a n a d m in istra to r’s d e c isio n a n d a n S S A a w a rd a s b u t o n e f a c to r w h ich ten d e d , in th a t ca se , to s h o w th a t th e p lan a d m in istra to r h a d a b u se d its d isc re tio n . T h e C o u rt f o u n d it tro u b lin g th a t “M e tL if

e h a d e n c o u ra g e d G len n to a rg u e to th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i nis trat i on that s he co uld do n o w ork, recei ved the b ulk of t he b enef i t s of he r s uccess i n doi ng s o ( the r emai ndergoi ng t o the l aw y er s i tr ecomm ended) , and then i gnor ed the agenc y ’ s fi ndi ng i n concl udi ng thatG l enn coul d i n fac tdo s edent aryw or k. ” Id . a t 2 3 5 2 . I n the ca s e bef

or e us , ther e i s no r eas on t o vi ew the SSA ’ s contr arydet erm i nat i on as evi dence of an a bus e of di s cr et i on gi ven thatthe SSA cons i der ed evi dence w hi ch w as d if f e re n t th a n th e e v id e n c e a v a ila b le to P ru d e n tia l. I I I . C oncl usi on W e w ill a f

f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.