1The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1386

___________

Rosemary Arthur, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance *

Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: September 25, 2001

 Filed: September 28, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rosemary Arthur appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her denial-of-benefits action brought under the Employment Retirement

Income Security Act (ERISA). Having conducted de novo review, we affirm. See

Delta Family-Care Disability and Survivorship Plan v. Marshall, 258 F.3d 834, 840-41

(8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). 
-2-

Arthur, a former respiratory care therapist, had long-term disability benefits

through her employer under a group benefits plan (Plan) administered by Hartford Life

and Accident Insurance Company (Hartford). The Plan defined “disability” as the

inability to do the material and substantial duties of the employee’s occupation for the

“elimination period” (the first six months of any disability period) and for the following

twelve months, and thereafter, the inability to perform any work for which the

employee was or could become qualified. Arthur applied for benefits claiming

disability since November 1996, primarily from headaches and back pain resulting from

a May 1992 car accident. After Hartford denied benefits initially and on appeal, Arthur

filed the instant lawsuit. 

We agree with the District Court that Arthur’s reliance on the opinions of two

treating physicians is misplaced. The opinions are conclusory and inconsistent with

records reflecting that she responded well to certain treatments. Further, another

treating doctor opined that her physical symptoms did not match the physician’s

objective findings, and it is undisputed that Arthur worked with chronic pain from the

time of her May 1992 car accident until November 1996. See id. at 842 (holding that

treating physicians’ opinions do not automatically control, as record must be evaluated

as a whole); Schatz v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 220 F.3d 944, 949 (8th Cir. 2000)

(holding that medical evidence was inconsistent or inconclusive where plaintiff had

worked with chronic pain for some time and long-time treating physician testified his

most recent opinion about her ability to work was based not on new objective findings

but on plaintiff’s asserted inability to tolerate unrelenting pain). 

Although the administrative transcript contains material supporting Arthur’s

claim for benefits, we find that the denial was reasonable considering, as we must, the

quality and quantity of the evidence as a whole. See Delta Family-Care Disability and

Survivorship Plan, 258 F.3d at 841 (explaining that a decision to deny benefits need not

be only sensible one, as long as reasoned explanation, based on evidence, is offered for

outcome); Fletcher-Merrit v. Noram Energy Corp., 250 F.3d 1174, 1180 (8th Cir.
-3-

2001) (explaining that an administrator’s discretionary decision should not be disturbed

even if another reasonable, but different, interpretation could be made). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.