FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1163 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00562 -CV -MH S-1 SERENA TAYLO R,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us BROADSPI RE SERVICI NG, INC., BELLSOUTH AD VERTISING & PUBLIS HING CORP.,
Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 21, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and H U L L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Se re naT ay lor

appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr antin g sum m ar y j udgm en t to B ro ad spi re S er

vic ing , I nc . ( “ Br oa dspi re ”) and B el lS outh A dve rt isi ng and Pu bli shi ng C or

por at ion( “ Be llS outh” ) in h er a ct ionc la im ing w ro ngf

ul d en ia l of be ne fi ts unde r the E m

plo y ee Re tir em en t I nc om e Se curi ty A ct ( “ E RI SA ”) , 29 U
. S
. C
. § 1 0 0 1 e ts e q . A f t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND A . A dm in ist ra ti ve C lai m T ay lor w as e m plo y ed by Be llS outh a s ac oll ec tio ns r ep re se ntativ e. O n Ju ly 30, 2004, Tay lor ceased w orking and , on Augus t 6, 2004, filed a c laim for short te rm dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts. T ay lor

sub m itt ed

astate m en t f

ro m he r tr eatin g ph y sic ian, Dr . D orothyWhite-W illiam s, indicating Tay lor wa s being treated for carpal tunnel sy ndr om e an d he ad ac he s and h ad “ de cr ea se d m ove m en t of [ he r] arm /f ing er s” w ith

“ sw el lin g pr es en t. ” D r. Whit e- W ill iam s w as una ble to re le as e T ay lor

to re tur n to work and did not k now w hen sign ificant im provem ent could be expected. D r. White-W illiam s noted nerve condu ction stu dies had been perform ed, and she had refe rredTay lo r to a ne ur ol og is t. D r. Whit e- W ill iam s su

bm itt ed he r of fi ce not es f

ro m T ay lor ’ s Augus t 24 , 2004 visit. T hese office notes ind icate T ay lor com plained of swollen hands , slee p dis tur banc e an d m igr ai ne s and w as ve ry ir ri ta ble
. T ay lor

w as takin g T y le nol ,3

co de ine , N ap ro xe n, I bupr of enand s le ep ing pil ls. D r. Whit e- W ill iam s c ondu ct ed a phy sical exam ination , noted “ no cong estion present,” and prescr ibed Nasonex
n a s a l s p r a y. Also in Tay lor’ s claim

file w as an April 5, 2004 appli cation for leave under the F am ily

and M ed ic al L eave A ct

( “ FM L A ”)
. T ay lor ’ s a

ppl ic at ionli ste d th es e health condit ions: fibrom y algia, c arpal tunnel syndrom e, tendinit is, irr itable bowel sy ndr om e, se ve re de pr es sio n, gland d iso rd er , c hr oni c pa in s yndr om e, inf lam at ion
an d “ ot he r rel at eddi so rd ers .” O n Augus t 30 , 200 4, Br oa dspi re , the thi rd -p ar ty a dm ini str at or

f or Be llS outh’ s lo ng and s hort t er m dis ab ili ty

plans, de nie d T ay lor ’ s c la im be ca use Tay lor had provid ed insufficient m edical inform ation. Br oadspire’ s letter stated T ay lor ’ s do ct or

ha d “ fa ile d to pr ovi de e xa m inatio n f ind ing s to sub stanti at e func tio na l i m

pa irm en ts o f a se ve ri ty

to supp ort y our

ina bil ity to pe rf orm any ty pe [of] work, with or w ithou t appropriate m edical re strictions from 8/6/0 4.” Broadspire advised Tay lor could appeal within 18 0 day s and “ include any m edical da tasuc h a s ne ur olo gic al e xa m inatio n, ne rv e co nduc tio n st udi es , RO M o f j oin ts,
m ot orst ren gt h, d ia gn os ti c te stres ul ts su ch as C T, xrays, ph y si ci an off ic e n ot es [,] et c[.], in an att em

pt to pe rfec t yourcla im .” About se ve n m onths l at er

( on M ar ch28, 200 5) , T ay lor f ile d an a ppe al ,Taylor’s two appe al letters state d that she wa s appea ling the de nial of longterm 1 dis a bil ity be ne fi ts. Ho we ve r, Ta

ylor ha d a pp lie d f or sh or t te rm , r athe r t

ha n lo ngte rm , d isa

bil ity be ne fi ts. B ro a ds pir e tr e ate d T aylor ’s le tte rs a s a pp e a ls o f t

he de nia l of

sh or t te rm dis a bil ity benef its. S ubsequently , on J anuar y 10, 2006, Taylor applied for long te rm disability

benef its. Br oadspire de nied this claim beca use Tay lor had not complete d the re quired wa iting per iod and was inelig ible under the plan. Tay lor’s administrative a

ppeal of this decision was re

jected a s un t i m e l y. For example, Taylor stated that she w as see n by a Dr . Cabot at the Smy

rna O rthopedic & 2 Sports Medicine Center

and quoted Dr . Cabot as saying: “ Ibelieve this patient ha s some sort of inflammatory

disorder that is causingpain and pe rhaps swe lling of he r upper extremiti es inc lud ingha

nd s and may a c tua lly be a sso c iate d w ithc arp a l tunn e l sy nd ro me .” Ta

ylor a lso claimed numer ous other doctor s had diagnosed her with tendonitis, fibromy alg ia, bac k sprain, c umu lativ e tr a

uma dis or de rs , a

nd re pe tit ive str a in i nju

ri e s. She c la ime d to have “ pr e vio us ly rec eived ther apy

treatments, medication and have had dia g nostic tests which have not isolated or proper ly diag nosed my

conditions.” 4 statin g, int er

a lia , that sh e w as suf

fe ri ng f ro m “ [c ] ar pa l tunne l, [ t] ed iou s, burtit os and fiberm

y alga and stress related c om plications ” and that “ test[s] we re per form ed [but] m edical evidence states that [s] ingle param eter te sts like EMG and NCVlack the ability

to differe ntiate betwee n condit ions with sim ilar sym ptom s, and to detect dis ea se , inj ur

y or ac um ulativ e tr aum a dis or de r in i ts e ar lie st s ta ge s. ” (E m pha sis
om itted). While she quo ted from doctors, T ay lor provided n o m edical 1 doc um en ta tio n f

ro m any doc tor s, le t a lon e the doc um en ts s he c la im ed to be quot ing. T ay lor stated she could n ot afford to m ake copies of her m edical

2 records, which she said we re volum inou s, and ar gued that sh e had signed m edical relea ses and had provi ded copies of her m edical re cords to the attorney
re pr es en tin g B el lS outh inhe r se parate c la im f or w orke rs c om

pe nsatio n be ne fi ts.5

On Mar ch 30, 2005, Broadspire sent a letter deny ing Tay lor’ s first level ap pe al on g ro unds that i t w as unt im el y . H ow ev er , Br oa dspi re a dvi se d T ay lor she could file a final appeal w ithin 180 day s. B roadspire also listed th e m edical inf orm at ionT ay lor

ne ed ed to subm it in s uppo rt

of he r fi na l a

ppe al , a s f

oll ow s: Insup port of

y our f ina l a ppe al , y ou s houl d in cl ude a ll av ai la ble inf orm at ionto supp ort y our r eque st, inc lud ing , but

not li m ite d to the fo llo w ing :

. . . - E xa m f ind ing s, inc lud ing , obj ec tiv e phy sic al e xa m inatio n f ind ing s, dia gnos tic te st r es ult s or

any oth er obj ec tiv e cl ini ca l data , int en sity of sym pto m s, r es ult s f

ro m a ll ex am s or

obj ec tiv e te sts that pr ev en t y ou fr om pe rf orm ing y our

j ob d uti es or any ty pe of w ork. - Consultation reports fr om . . . m edical providers - L aboratory

reports such as: Chem istry Profile, CBC
- X -r ay r ep orts
- Func tio na l C ap ac ity

E va luatio n O n Apr il 5, 200 5, T ay lor se nt a le tte r re que sti ng a

f ina l a ppe al and a ga in s ta te d sh e could no t affor d to attach copies of her m edical re cords and had already provided the m to the a tto rn ey

r ep re se nti ng B el lS outh a s to T ay lor ’ s w orke rs c om pe nsatio n
c l a i m. Du ri n g th e a d m i n i s t ra t i v e ap p ea l , s ev er al s p ec i al i s t s re v i ew edTa ylo r’s subm iss ion s and n ote d th e ab se nc e of m ed ic al inf

orm at ionne ed ed

to de te rm ine
w he the r T ay lor

w as dis ab le d. F or

e xa m ple , D r. V au ghn Co he n, ane ur olo gis t, not ed the doc um en ta tio n f

ro m D r. Whit e- W ill iam s di d no t: (1 ) “ de sc ri be the6

cl ai m an t’ s sy

m pto m s inany

de ta il” ; ( 2) “ inc lud e an y inf orm at ionr eg ar din g phy sical exam

findings ”; (3) “provide any explanation to suppo rt” her opin ion th at Tay lor is unable to work; (4) contain an histo rical descr iptio n of Tay lor’ s m edical problem s; or (5) include “ signi ficant abnorm al phy sical exam signs ” such as

“ ab nor m al c ogni tio n, or

abnor m al str en gth , se nsatio n, c oor din at ionor ga it an d ba lanc e” or

ade sc ri pti on o f “ an y

im pa irm en t w ithr es pe ct

to en dur an ce f

or p e r f o rmi n g as e a t e dj o b [ a ta ] d e s k
. ” D r . C o h e n p o i n t e do u tD r . Wh i t e - Wi l l i a ms had not su bm itted the results of nerve conductio n stud ies. I n sum , D r. Cohen
co nc lud ed

that “ [n ] one of

thi s in fo rm at ionis ind ic at ive of af unc tio na l i m

pa irm en t which w ouldpreclude w ork.” D r. W en dy

W ei nst ei n, aspe ci al ist

in int er na l m ed ic ine , li ke w ise not ed the la ck of any phy sic al e xa m inatio n f

ind ing s, suc h a s a“ m

usc ulo ske le ta l e xa m inatio n not ing the r an ge of

m ove m en t of

the upp er

e xtr em iti es w ithm

usc le str en gthand sensory exam ination findings .” D r. W einstein po inted ou t that, although Dr. Wh i t e - Wi l l i a ms h a di n d i c a t e dth a tT a yl o r h a dd e c r e a s e dmo v e me n to f h e r arms
an d f ing er s, she ha d no t qu an tif ie d th e de cr ea se and tha t the m ed ic al r ec or ds doc um en te d no spe ci fi c lim itatio ns o r re str ic tio ns. Sim ilarly , D r. Yvonne Sherr er, a rheum atologi st, pointed ou t that Dr. WhiteW ill iam s’ s “ not at ionof

de cr ea se d m ove m en t of

arm is nons pe ci fi c an d do es not7

de te rm in e whe th er t he de crea se d m ov em en t i s l im it edto th e sh ou ld ers , th e el bo ws
or w ri sts , or

w he the r the de cr ea se d m ove m en t i s ina ll plane s or w he the r it is m ild , m ode rate or

se ve re . ” D r. S he rr er

not ed that “ [t ] he dis cu ssi on o f sw el lin g is a lso
nons pe ci fi c an d do es not dis tin gui sh b etw ee n e de m a an d j oin t sw el lin g, ” or “ the
ex te ns iv en es s o f th e swe ll in g o r whe th er i t i s m il d, m od erat e o r se ve re.” O n June 27, 200 5, Br oa dspi re se nt T ay lor af ina l de nia l l ette r statin g th at the Appeals ReviewCom

m ittee had review ed the m edical inform ation in h er f ile, containin g onlyDr . W

hite-W illiam s’ s phy sician statem ent and August 24 office visit n otes and Tay lor’ s April 9, 2005 application for FML A le ave, and concluded that it didnot sup port Tay lor being dis abled. T he letter noted, inter alia, that Dr
. White-W illiam s had “ rem arked that [T ay lor] had decrea sed m ovem ent of [her]
ar m s and f ing er s w ithsw el lin g, ” but “ did not a tta chquanti ta tiv e range of m oti on
m ea sur em en ts t o su

bst an tiate the se ve ri ty

of the li m itatio n” and tha t, a lth ough docum entation in dicated that Tay lor had seen specialists, “ [m ] edical doc um en ta tio n f

ro m oth er a tte ndi ng d oc tor s w er e not pr ovi de d th ro ugho ut the ap pe al pro ces s.” B. D ist ri ctC ou rtP ro ce ed in gs T ay lor f ile d th is a ct ionin fe de ra l c ourt, a lle gin g th at she w as w ro ngl y de nie d bo th s hort t er

m and l ong te rm

dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts. D ef

en dants f ile d aTaylor obtained ne w counse l to repre sent her in the district c ourt. Initially , new c ounsel 3 filed a motion to compel produc tion of Taylor’s entire claim file. Upon le arningthat Taylor’s entire c laim file had be en produc ed and c ontained only the three documents alre ady discussed, ne w c ouns e l w ith dr e w the mot ion to c omp e l and

fi le d a mot ion to r e mand

so tha t T aylor c ou ld submit t he additional medica l rec ords for r eview. The district cour

t also noted that most of the medica l rec ords Tay lor wante d Br oadspire 4 to r e vie w o n r e mand

re late d to a

pe ri od pr ior to h e r Augus t 20 04 sh or

t te rm dis a bil ity be ne fi ts claim and we re of

limit ed re levanc e. 8 m otion for sum

m ary j udgm ent. T ay lor filed two m otion s for partial sum m ary j udgm en t and a

m oti on t o st ay

sum m ar y j udgm en t and r em an d th e ca se to Br oa dspi re so tha t a ddi tio na l m ed ic al r ec or ds c oul d be r ev ie w ed
. 3 T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d de fe ndants ’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t and de ni edTay lo r’s m ot io ns forpa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t an d m ot io n t o re m an d. The district court concluded, “ [b] ased on the very lim ited m edical evidence pr es en te d by

pla int if f, ” that B ro ad spi re ’ s de nia l of sho rt te rm dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts
w as c or re ct . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d T ay lor ’ s c ont en tio n th at the c as e shou ld b e
rem anded, stating that the bu rden wa s on Tay lor to sub m it all relevant m edical inf orm at ionand B ro ad spi re ha d “ fu lly inf orm ed ” T ay lor

that sh e ne ed ed

to provide m edical inform ation in su pport of her claim
. T he district court concluded 4 that T ay lor

w as not e nti tle d to lon g te rm

dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts b ec au se , und er

the te rm s of the plan, she m

ust f ir st h av e re ce ive d 52 w ee ks o f shor t t er m dis ab ili ty be ne fi ts, w hic h sh e ha d no t. T ay lor f ile d am oti on f

or ane wtr ia l, w hic h th eTh e pa rt ie s a g re e that th e pla

n v e sts B ro a ds pir e wi th d isc re tio n in makin gbe ne fi ts 5 de te rm inatio ns , b ut d isa g re e a s to wh e the r B ro a ds pir e a c ts und e r a c on fl ic t of

int e re st. 9 dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso de nie d T ay lor ’ s m oti on f or
re co nsi de ratio n of

he r m oti on f

or ane wtr ia l. T ay lor f ile d th is a ppe al
. II. D ISCU SSION A . Su m m ar y Ju dg m en t M ot ion In review ing a decision to deny benefits in an ER ISAcase, the district court proceeds through a “ we ll-defined series of steps.” T ippit t v. Re liance Standard Lif e Ins. Co., 457 F.3d 1227 , 1231-32 (11th Cir. 2006 ). First, the district court
ex am in es th e p la n d oc um en ts to de te rm in e whi ch st an da rdof r ev ie w app li es . H CAH ea lthS er

vs. of G a. v. E m

plo y er s H ea lthI ns. Co
. , 240 F
. 3d 9 82, 993 ( 11th Cir. 2001 ). G enerally , r eview is de novo; if, howe ver, the plan adm inistrator has dis cr et ionund er

the plan to gr an t be ne fi ts, the c ourt a ppl ie s e ith er

the arb itr ar

y and
ca pr ic iou s or

ahe igh te ne d arb itr ar

y and c ap ri ci ous standard

of r ev ie w , de pe ndi ng upon whether

the plan adm inistrator is acting un der a c onflict of interest. I d. at 992- 93. 5

“ Re gard le ss o f w he the r ar bitrary and c ap ri ci ous or

he igh te ne d arb itr ar

y and
cap ri ci o u s re v i ew ap p l i es , t h e c o u rt ev al u at es th e c l ai m s ad m i n i s t ra t o r’s10

int er pr et at ionof

the plan to de te rm ine w he the r it is ‘ w ro ng. ’ ” I d. a t 9 93. T hus, the c ourt do es not

loo k to w he the r the plan a dm ini str at or a ct s un de r a co nf

lic t of in te res t u nl es s i t fi rs t co nc lu de s t ha t t he pl an ad m in is tra to r’s de ci si on was wro ng . Se e id. “ Ade ci sio n is ‘ w ro ng’ if , a ft er ar ev ie wof

the de ci sio n of

the adm ini str at or

f ro m ade nov o pe rs pe ct ive , the c ourt di sa gr ee s w iththe adm ini str at or ’ s de ci sio n. ” G la ze r v. Re lianc e St an dard L if e In s. Co
. , 524 F
. 3d 1241 , 1246 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation m arks om itted). “ The c ourt m ust cons ider, based on th e re cord before the a dm inistrator at the tim e its decision was m ade,
w he the r the c ourt w oul d r ea chthe sam e de ci sio n a s th e adm ini str at or . ” I d. O nly if the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud es the plan a dm ini str at or ’ s de ci sio n w as w ro ng d oe s it proceed to the rem aining st eps. T ippit t, 457 F. 3d at 123 2. I f the district court de te rm ine s th at

the a dm ini str at or ’ s de ci sio n w as c or re ct , the inquir

y e nds. I d. T he cl ai m an t be ar s th e bur de n to pr ove that sh e is e nti tle d to be ne fi ts. H ortonv. Reliance S tandard Lif

e Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 1038 , 1040 (11th Cir. 1998). H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d de nov o th at Br oa dspi re ’ s de ci sio n to de ny T ay lor sho rt te rm dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts w as c or

re ct and, thu s, did

not r ea chthe ot he r st ep s, i nc lu di ng th e p reci se st an da rdof r ev ie w to ap pl y . On ap pe al , “ we consider, as the district court did, whether the decision . .
. wa s ‘ wr ong.’ ” G lazer ,We reviewde novo a district c ourt order g rantingsummary

judgme nt. Glazer, 524 F .3d 6 at 1245. On appe al, Tay

lor does not cha lleng e the district cour t’s conclusion that she wa s 7 ineligible f

or longterm disability

benef its, and we do not addr ess it further
. Be cause we, like the district c ourt, conc lude that B roadspire ’s dec ision to deny short 8 term disability

benef its was not wrong , we do not re ach the question whether Br oadspire ha d a c on fl ic t of

int e re st s uc h th at th e he ig hte ne d a rb itr ary and c a pr ic iou s st and ard

of re vie w s ho uld apply . Acc ording ly , we ne ed not addr ess the import of Metropolitan L ife Insuranc e Co. v. Glenn, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. C t. 2343 (2008), which a ddresse d when a plan administrator is ac ting unde r a c on fl ic t of

int e re st. 11 524 F. 3d at 12 47. I n so doi ng, “ [w ] e ar e lim ite d to the r ec or d th at w as be fo re [ the 6 plan a dm ini str at or ] w he n it m ad e its de ci sio n. ” I d. Af ter re viewing the adm inistrative record, we agree with the district court that B ro ad spi re ’ s de nia l of T ay lor ’ s a

ppl ic at ionf

or sho rt te rm dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts
w as not w ro ng. T ay lor

f ai le d to pr ovi de suf

fi ci en t m ed ic al inf

orm at ionto 7 establish sh e w as disabled. A s the review ing m edical specialists indi cated, Dr
. Whit e- W ill iam s’ s ph y sic ian st at em en t and Augus t 24 of fi ce vis it not es do n ot
co nta in the kin d of

qua lit at ive or

quanti ta tiv e m ed ic al inf

orm at ionne ed ed

to determ ine Tay lor’ s functional lim itations on her ability to work. Indeed, Dr
. Wh i t e - Wi l l i a ms ’s r e c o r d s ar e s up e r f i c i a l an dc o n c l u s o ry. 8 W e also rej ect T ay lor’ s argum ent that the district court (and the plan adm ini str at or

be fo re it ) im

pose d an ob

j ec tiv e m ed ic al e vid en ce standard not required under the plan. A lthou gh Broadspire’ s denial letters ref erre d, inter a lia,12

to the lack of “ objec tive data,” it is clear f rom a re view of the e ntire rec ord that, as the ini tia l de nia l l ette r state d and the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound , Br oa dspi re ’ s de nia l of be ne fi ts “ w as ult im at el y

ba se d no t onala ck

of suc h [ obj ec tiv e] e vid en ce , but be ca use ‘ [t ] he doc tor

f ai le d to pr ovi de e xa m inatio n f ind ing s to sub stanti at e func tio na l i m

pa irm en ts o f a se ve ri ty

to supp ort y our

ina bil ity to pe rf orm any ty pe of w ork, w ithor

w ith out appr opr ia te m ed ic al r es tr ic tio ns f ro m 8/6 /04
. ’ ” (S ec ond al te ratio n a dde d)
. T he sho rt te rm dis ab ili ty

plan r equir ed

T ay lor to pr ovi de “s a t i s f a c t o ry e v i d e n c e ” o f

d i s ab i l i t y, w h i c h s h e f

a i l e dt o d o . Ac c o r d i n g l y, Br oa dspi re w as c or

re ct in de ny ing T ay lor

sho rt te rm dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts, and the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y

gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t t o de fe ndants . B. Motion t o Rem and T ay lor arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in re fu sin g to r em an d th e ca se so she c oul d su

bm it ad dit ion al m ed ic al r ec or ds. W e ha ve he ld tha t a

dis tr ic t c ourt r ev ie w ing the de nia l of E RI SAbe ne fi ts

“ shou ld lim it its review to consideration of the m aterial available to [the plan adm ini str at or ] a t the ti m e it m ad e its de ci sio n. ” Je tt v. Bl ue Cr oss & Bl ue S hie ld of Ala ., Inc. , 890 F. 2d 11 37, 1140 (11t h Cir. 1989 ). While the district court has
som e dis cr et ionto re m an d to a llo wthe pla int if f to s uppl em ent the a dm ini str at ive record, see id., the district court is not required to do so in every case. H ere,Al tho ugh T aylor c la ime d th at sh e c ou ld n ot a ff or d to c op y

he r m e dic a l r e c or ds be c a us e 9 they wer e too voluminous, her motion to remand identified only 62 pag es of a dditional medical re c or ds sh e wi sh e d to su

bmi t f or re vie w. A r e vie w o f t

he se do c ume nts , whic h T aylor atta c he d to her motion for pa

rtial summary

judgme nt, reve als that many of them ar e not medica l treatment rec ords, but medical pa

y ment and insuranc e re cords, a nd some are duplicates. L ess than half of the 62 pa g e s are tr e atme nt n ote s o r o the r m e dic a l do c ume ntatio n o f t he kin d B ro a ds pir e lis te d in its de nia l le tte rs . 13 Broadspire re peatedly

advised Tay lor during th e adm inistrative appeal process that she ne ed ed

to pr ovi de sup portin g m ed ic al doc um en ta tio n and i de nti fi ed in de ta il the kin ds o f ev ide nc e ne ed ed
. T ay lor did not pr ovi de any

of thi s do cum en ta tio n, althoug h it was available to her. O n appeal Tay lor describes this evidence as 9

“ ne w . ” H ow ev er , a lm ost a ll of the se m ed ic al r ec or ds p re da te d he r cl ai m f or be ne fi ts and a ll pr ed at ed

the c om ple tio n of the a dm ini str at ive appe al s pr oc es s and thu s w er e not

ne we vid en ce . A s th e sum m ar y plan de sc ri pti on i ndi cate s, T ay lor
w as r equir ed

to “ [p ] ro vid e al l ne ce ssary and a ppr opr ia te inf

orm at ionr eg ar din g [her] conditio n” and to “ furnish satisfactory evidence of [her ] disabilit y .” T hus, as the district court noted , T ay lor had the burden to p rovide all relevant m edical i n f o rma t i o n t o B r o a d s p i r e i n s up p o rto f h e r c l a i m. De spite the fact that all three denial letters m ade it clear that Tay lor’ s short te rm dis ab ili ty

c la im w as be ing de nie d be ca

use she f ai le d to pr ovi de suf

fi ci en t
m edical re cords, T ay lor m ade no attem pt to supplem ent the adm inistrative record unt il: ( 1) e igh t m onths a ft er she f ile d su it in f

ed er al c ourt and a ft er

de fe ndantsThis Court need not addr ess under what standa

rd we revie w a district cour t’s denial of a 10 motion to remand an ERI SA case to supplement the administrative re cord be cause , under e ither a de no vo or

a bu se of dis c re tio n s tand ard

of re vie w, the dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in d e c lin ingto rema nd the ca se to the plan a dminist rator. 14 m oved for summ ary

j udgm ent, and (2) over three y ears a fter her claim had been denied for lack of evidence. U nder the circum stances, w e cannot say the district court’ s denial of Tay lor’ s m otion to rem and was r eversible err or. 10 AFFIRMED.