T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe c ite d , h o w e v e r, fo r i ts p e rs u a s iv e v a lu e c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M arch23,2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C I R C U I T K A THY L. BU C K A R DT, Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 8005 A L B E R T S ON’ S , I N C . a n d VP A , In c ., D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . ( D . C . No . 0 4 - CV- 9 9 - B ) ( D . W y om i ng)

ORDE R AND J UDGM E N T * B efor e B R I S C O E , E B E L , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. A l ber t s on’ s , I nc. ( “A l ber t s on’ s ”) , appea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof K athyB uckar dt( “B uckar dt ”) , w ho fi l ed a cl ai m undert he Em pl oy ee Ret i r ementI ncome Secur i t yA ct( “ER I SA ”) , 29 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 , after A lb e rtso n ’s d e n ied h e r c laim fo r lo n g -te rm d isa b ili ty b en efit s. T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted B u ck ard t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entbeca us e i tdet erm i ned thatA l ber t s on’ s deni al of bene fi t s w as-2-

arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous . O n appea l , A l ber t s on’ s ar gues t her e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor ti t s deni al of bene fi t s and thatt he di s t r i ct cour t , des pi t e cl ai m i ng t o r evi ew t he dec i s i on underthe arbi t r aryand c a p ri c io u s s ta n d a rd , e rr o n e o u s ly re v ie w e d th e d e c is io n d e n o v o . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d RE V E R S E a n d RE M AND. I. B uckar dtw or ked as a pharm acym anage ratone of A l ber t s on’ s s t or es i n W y om i ng and part i ci pat ed i n t he company ’ s l ong- t erm di s abi l i t ypl an (“ th e P lan ” ), w h ich w a s a d m in iste re d b yA lb e rtso n ’s th ro u g h its B e n e fits D epart m ent . U ndert he Pl an’ s t erm s , an empl oy ee i s perm i t t ed t o r ece i ve l ong- t erm di s abi l i t ybenefi t s i f the empl oy ee i s t ot al l ydi s abl ed. T he Pl an defi nes “Tot al D i s abi l i t y ” t o m ean: the c o m p let e ina b il ityo f th e E m p loy ee to p erfo rm an yan d ev ery d u tyo f h is or h er reg u lar oc cu p ati o n w ith the E m p loy er; pr ovi ded, t hati f bene fi t s have be en pai d pur s uantt o Sect i on 3 . 0 1 fo r2 4 m o n t h s o fa n y c o n t i n u o u s p e r i o d o fT o t a l D i s a b i l i t y, t hen fort he bal ance of the per i od of Tot al D i s abi l i t yfol l ow i ng su c h 2 4 -m o n th p e rio d , T o tal D isa b ili tysh a ll m e a n th e c o m p lete i nabi l i t yof the Em pl oy ee t o per for m anyand eve r ydut yof any gai nful occupa t i on forw hi ch he ors he i s r eas onabl yfi t t ed by t r a i n i n g , e d u c a t i o n o re x p e r i e n c e , o rma yr e a s o n a b l yb e c o m e qual i fi ed bas ed on hi s orhert r ai ni ng, educa t i on orexper i ence , s u bje c t to th e a p p lic a tio n o fR e h a b ilita tiv e E m p lo ym e n t. R ec o rd o n A p p ea l ( “R O A ”) a t 11 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he Pl an s t at ed thatt he det erm i nat i on of Tot al D i s abi l i t y“s hal l be det erm i ned byt he Pl an A dm i ni s t r at ori n i t s s ol e and a bs ol ut e di s cr et i on. ”- 3-

I d. T he Pl an gr ant s i t s admi ni s t r at or“[t ] he di s cr et i on t o m ake factfi ndi ngs and t o det erm i ne al l ques t i ons r el at i ng t o t he el i gi bi l i t yof Em pl oy ees for b e n e fits, as w e ll as th e a m o u n t o fp a ym e n t o fb e n e fits” a n d th e p o w e r “ to cons t rue and i nt erpr etthe Pl an and the Trus t . ” I d. at132. I n M ayof 2000, B uckar dti nj ur ed herback a tw or k and underw ent s ever al s ur ger i es i n t he fol l ow i ng m ont hs . I n Sept emberof 2000, A l ber t s on’ s det erm i ned thatB uckar dtw as t ot al l ydi s abl ed bas ed upon her i nabi l i t yt o per form herr egul aroccupa t i on of pharm acym anage r , and aw ar ded herl ong- t erm di s abi l i t ybenefi t s . I n Sept emberof 2002, B uckar dt w as r equi r ed t o demonst r at e thats he mett he more s t r i ngentr equi r ementof t ot al di s abi l i t yr equi r ed undert he Pl an i f “be nefi t s have be en pai d pur s uant to S e c tio n 3 .0 1 fo r 2 4 m o n th s o fa n yc o n tin u o u s p e ri o d o fT o ta l D is a b ility. .

. . ” I d . a t1 1 1 . T o m e e tt h i s m o r e s t r i n g e n td e fi n i t i o n o ft o t a l d i s a b i l i t y, B uckar dtw oul d have t o be unabl e t o “per for m anyand eve r ydut yof any gai nful occupa t i on forw hi ch . . . s he [w a] s r eas onabl yfi t t ed byt r ai ni ng, e d u c a tio n o r e x p e ri e n c e . . . .” Id . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I n conj unct i on w i t h hert w o- y eareval uat i on, A l ber t s on’ s r eques t ed t hatB uckar dtunder go a Funct i onal C apac i t yE val uat i on ( “FC E ”) , w hi ch w o u ld te s t h e r fu n c tio n a l c a p a b iliti e s th ro u g h a b a tte ry o fo bje c tiv e te s ts . B uckar dtunderw entan FC E on A ugus t28, 2002, w i t h H ands O n Phy s i cal T her apy . T he phy s i cal t her api s tw ho admi ni s t er ed the FC E comm ent ed that-4-

B uckar dt ’ s “G l obal E ffortR at i ng” w as ques t i onabl e and thatB uckar dt per cei ved herabi l i t i es t o per for m w or k t as ks atw el l bel ow hert es t ed a b ili ties . H o w e v e r, th e p h y sic a l th e ra p ist n o ted th a t B u c k a rd t h a d c e rta in l i m i t at i ons w i t h l i ft i ng, carr y i ng, cl i m bi ng, and s i t t i ng. Speci fi cal l y , he not ed thatB uckar dtw as “fr equent l yup and dow n fr om herchai r ” and that t he l onges tt i m es s he s atw as el even mi nut es . I d. at38. T he phy s i cal th e ra p is t c o n c lu d e d , [i ] n t erm s of ac ces s t o t he j ob m arket , K athyB uckar dt per form ed ata modi fi ed “Sede nt ary ” phy s i cal demand c h a ra c te ri s tic le v e l a s d e fin e d b yth e U .S . D e p a rt m e n t o fL a b o r. A t th is l ev el sh e c o u ld n o t r eturn to h er job as a P h arm ac ist . It m u s t b e n o te d th a t p a tie n t s e lflim ite d h e r w e ig h te d a c tiv itie s . She w as notr equi r ed t o m ai nt ai n hers eatpos tur e ( s he w as a llo w e d to tra n sitio n h e r p o stu re a s s h e w a n ted ). S h e w a s a b le t o per form m os tof heract i vi t i es and pos tur es ata hi gherl evel t han s he r at ed her s el f i n heri nt ervi ew and i n t he P . A . C . T . Sp eci al Fu ncti on So rt . Id . O n Sept ember20, 2002, A l ber t s on’ s M edi cal R evi ew C om m i t t ee, cons i s t i ng of m ember s of A l ber t s on’ s B enefi t s D epart m ent , m etw i t h a c o n s u ltin g p h y s ic ia n , D r. J a m e s M o re la n d , to re v ie w B u c k a rd t’ s c la im . A l ber t s on’ s i nform ed B uckar dton O ct ober3, 2002, t hat“[a ] ccor di ng t o t he Funct i onal C apac i t i es E val uat i on t hatw as s ubm i t t ed forthi s r evi ew , i tw as det erm i ned thaty ou can pe r form s edent aryw or k. T her efor e, y ou no l onger m eett he Pl an’ s defi ni t i on of ‘ T ot al D i s abi l i t y ’ and y ourcl ai m forL ong T e rm D is a b ility b e n e fits h a s b e e n te rm in a te d .” Id . a t 4 1 .- 5-

B u c k a rd t a p p e a le d th is d e c is io n a n d s u b m itte d , w ith h e r a p p e a l, a l et t erfr om herhus band and a s t at ementfr om D r . M ar gar etI r i s h, one of he r t r eat i ng phy s i ci ans . I n herappea l , B uckar dtur ged A l ber t s on’ s t o cons i der herpr obl ems w i t h pai n and comm ent ed, t her e ar e tw o m ai n pr obl ems i n m ys eeki ng s om e form of s edent aryw or k. T he fi r s ti s t he gr eatpai n t hatI exper i ence t hat i s veryunr el ent i ng. I ti s di s t r act i ng t o be i n s uch pai n and at t empt t o per form anygai nful empl oym enteven i f s om eone w o u ld b e w illin g to h ir e m e w ith s u c h a d e b ilita tin g h a n d ic a p . Second, t o j us teas e the pai n s l i ght l y , I am on hi gh dos es of narcot i cs. Ithas cau sed m e m uch em barr assm ent t o fee l so dul l ed byt he drugs . I d. at43- 44. B uckar dti ncl uded a s t at ementfr om herhus band, i n w hi ch he r ei t er at ed B u c k a rd t’s p ro b lem s w ith p a in , n o tin g th a t “p a in ru les h e r life , sh e h a s to pl an eve r ybr eath, everym ovement , and eve r yact i vei t y[s i c] ar ound her pai n. ” I d. at45. Fi nal l y , B uckar dti ncl uded a l et t erfr om D r . I r i s h, one of he rt r eat i ng phy s i ci ans . D r . I r i s h, w ho s peci al i zed i n phy s i cal m edi ci ne and r ehabi l i t at i on, w as a new as s oci at e of Buckar dt ’ s r egul arphy s i ci an and ha d s e e n Bu c k a r d to n t w o o c c a s i o n s . Dr . I r i s h c o mme n t e d o n Bu c k a r d t ’ s F C E eval uat i on and s t at ed, [ e ] v e n t h o u g h s h e w a s r a t e d i n t h e m o d i fi e d s e d e n t a r y c a t e g o r y, hereduca t i on and tr ai ni ng as w el l as j ob exper i ence and re q u ir e m e n ts d o n o t fit in to th e m o d ifie d s e d e n ta ry c a te g o ry. H erj ob as a r et ai l pharm aci s tw oul d fi tm or e i nt o t he l i ght cat ego ryas far as l i ft i ng , bu ti n the m edium cat ego ryas far [as ] r epet i t i ve r eac hi ng and gr as pi ng and i n t he hea vycat egoryas far- 6-

a s p ro lo n g e d re q u ir e m e n t fo r s ta n d in g a n d w a lk in g . Id . a t 4 7 . D r . I r i s h concl uded, [a] s an expe r i ence d phy s i cal m edi ci ne and r ehabi l i t at i on phy s i ci an, I w oul d s t at e w i t houta doubtatt hi s t i m e M s . K athy B u ck ard t i s totall yd isab led. S h e c u rren tl yis un ab le t o “p erfo rm anyand eve r ydut yof anygai nful occupa t i on. ” A tt hi s t i m e, s he w oul d noteven be abl e t o t ol er at e under goi ng r ehabi l i t at i ve empl oym entorvocat i onal r ehabi l i t at i on. H erpai n i s t oo d is tr a c tin g a n d v e ry lim itin g w ith m o b ility c u rr e n tly. Id . a t 4 8 . O n N o v em b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , the M ed ical R ev iew C o m m ittee m et w ith D r. T heodor e W al t er s , a cons ul t i ng phy s i ci an, t o addr es s B uckar dt ’ s appea l , and once a gai n deni ed bene fi t s . B uckar dtappea l ed thi s deci s i on. O n D ece m ber 6 , 2 0 0 2 , B u c k a rd t w a s a w a rd e d S o c ial S e c u rityD isa b ili tyB e n e fits ( “SSD B ”) effect i ve as of N ovemberof 2000. B u c k a rd t u n d e rw e n t a s e c o n d F C E o n Ja n u a ry2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , w ith W or kST E PS, I nc. , w hi ch s oughtt o “obj ect i vel yquant i fycurr entm axi m um vol unt aryphy s i cal capa ci t y . ” I d. at60. T he phy s i cal t her api s tw ho admi ni s t er ed thi s FC E comm ent ed, [t ] he l i m i t ed s i t t i ng and s t andi ng t ol er ance M r s . B uckar dt exhi bi t s t odayw oul d pr ecl ude herfr om a r etur n t o a Pharm acy pos i t i on att hi s t i m e. O n s ever al occa s i ons t odays he s t ood for 4 -5 m inu tes m ax im u m , then sat d o w n fo r sev era l m inu tes b efo re needi ng t o s t and up, m or e fr equent l ys t andi ng onl y2- 3 m i nut es befor e s i t t i ng dow n agai n. D ur i ng t he 2 hour s , 15 m i nut es eval uat i on, 2 hour s w as s pents i t t i ng and s t andi ng. T he m axi m um s i t t i ng t i m e w as 10 m i nut es , how ever , m or e oft en s he s atl es s than 5 mi nut es befor e s t andi ng up orw al ki ng. She demonst r at ed thi s fr equentpos tur e cha nges [s i c] w hi l e fi l i ng [s i c] outpai n di agr ams att he begi nni ng of t es t i ng. I d. at68.-7-

H e c o mme n t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a tBu c k a r d ta p p e a r e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e s o m e behavi or s t hatw er e di s pr opor t i onat e t o t he ac tual funct i onal l os s caus ed by h er im p airm en t. H e c o n clud ed B u ck ard t w o u ld q u ali fyfo r th e se d en tary phy s i cal demand char act er i s t i c l evel as defi ned byt he U . S. D epart m entof L a b o r, w ith a re d u c e d liftin g lev e l. In A p ril 4 , 2 0 0 3 , A lb e rtso n ’s M e d ica l R e v iew C o m m itt e e o n c e a g a in d e t e r m i n e d t h a tBu c k a r d twa s n o tt o t a l l yd i s a b l e d b e c a u s e t h e “ s e c o n d F C E a lso in d ica tes sh e c a n p e rfo rm a t a s e d e n tar yw o rk lev e l. T h e re fo re sh e is n o t disab led from an yg ainfu l em p loy m en t and d o es n o t m ee t th e P lan’s defi ni t i on of t ot al di s abi l i t y . ” I d. at76. B uckar dtappea l ed aga i n on J une 23, 2003, t hr ough a l et t erw r i t t en by h er a tt o rne y . A lbertson ’s i n fo rm ed B u ck ard t th at th is w o u ld b e h er third a n d fin a l ap p e a l. O n Ju ly1 1 , 2 0 0 3 , the M e d ica l R e v iew C o m m itt e e a g a in deni ed B uckar dtbenefi t s , det erm i ni ng t hat , “[n] o new m edi cal document at i on w as pr ovi ded t o s uppor thercl ai m s s he i s t ot al l ydi s abl ed fr om anyoccupa t i on ( pl eas e ci t e pl an defi ni t i on fordi s abl ed [s i c] aft er24 m os . ) . ” I d. at82. B uckar dtw as i nfor m ed of thi s deci s i on bya l et t erand r emi nded thats he had e xhaus t ed herappea l s pr oces s . B uckar dtt hen b ro u g h t h e r E R IS A c la im in th e D is tr ic t o fW y o m in g p u rs u a n t to 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a)(1)(B ). T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted s u m m aryjud g m en t i n B u ck ard t’ s fa v o r a n d th is a p p e a le d fo llo w e d .T h is ci rcu ith as c o n clud ed that, in the E R IS A co n text, the a rbit rary 1 and ca pr i ci ous s t andar d i s equat ed w i t h t he abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d and th e re is a s e m a n tic , n o t s u b s ta n tiv e , d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e te rm s . C h am b ers v . F am il yH ea lth P lan C o rp., 1 0 0 F . 3 d 8 1 8 , 8 2 5 n . 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ).

- 8- II. T he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned, and the part i es do notdi s put e, t hatt he Pl an gr ant ed A l ber t s on’ s di s cr et i onaryauthor i t yt o det erm i ne el i gi bi l i t yfor b e n e fits. T h e re fo re , the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyc o n c lu d e d th a t itsh o u ld r evi ew A l ber t s on’ s deci s i on underan arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous , orabus e of di s cr et i on, s t andar d. G ai t herv. A etna Li fe I ns . C o. , 388 F. 3d 759, 767 1 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( w hen an ER I SA pl an gr ant s a pl an admi ni s t r at ordi s cr et i on in ad m inist ering the p lan, w e w il l up h o ld it s d ec isi o n s u n less theyare arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous ) . B eca us e B uckar dthas notr ai s ed the i s s ue of a p o t e n t i a l c o n fl i c to fi n t e r e s twa r r a n t i n g a n e n h a n c e d s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w , we as s um e thatt he pur e arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous s t andar d appl i es . See Fought v. U N U M L i fe I ns . C o. of A m . , 379 F. 3d 997, 1003 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( not i ng that this co u rtap p li es a less d efere n ti al arb itraryan d ca p ri ciou s stan d ard w hen the pl an admi ni s t r at orhas a confl i ctof i nt er es t ) ; G ai t her , 394 F. 3d at 801. T h is d istric t co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o fw h e th e r a n E R IS A b e n e fits d e c is io n is a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s is a le g a l q u e s tio n re v ie w e d d e n o v o .- 9-

C a ld w e ll v . L ife In s . C o . o fN . A m ., 2 8 7 F .3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A deci s i on i s arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous i f i ti s uns uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . S a n d o v a l v . A e tn a L ife & C a s. In s. C o ., 9 6 7 F .2 d 3 7 7 , 3 8 2 (1 0 th C i r . 1992) . “‘ Subst ant i al evi dence i s s uch evi dence t hata r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor tt he conc l us i on r eac hed byt he [dec i s i onm aker ] . ’ Subst ant i al evi dence r equi r es ‘ m or e than a s ci nt i l l a but l es s t han a pr eponder ance . ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) “Subs t ant i al i t yof the evi dence i s bas ed upon the r ecor d as a w hol e. I n det erm i ni ng w hethert he evidence in supp ortof the adm i nis t rat or’ s deci si on i s subst anti al , w e m ust t ake[ ] i nt o acc ountw hat everi n t he r ecor d fai r l ydetr act s fr om i t s w ei ght . ” C aldw ell , 2 8 7 F . 3 d at 12 8 2 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W hen r evi ew i ng undert he arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous s t andar d, “[t ] he A dm i nis t rat or[’ s] decis i on need no tbe the on l yl og i cal on e no r even t he b est on e. Itneed on l ybe suffi ci entl ysupp ort ed b yt he fa ct s w i t hin [hi s] know l edge t o count era cl ai m t hati tw as arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous . ” K i m ber v. T hi okol C orp. , 196 F. 3d 1092, 1098 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . I n r evi ew i ng t he p la n a d m in is tr a to r’ s d e c is io n 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 , a d istric t co u rt is lim ited to th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd , o r th e m a ter ials compi l ed byt he pl an admi ni s t r at ori n m aki ng t he dec i s i on. Sandoval , 967 F. 2d at380. T hi s cour tr evi ew s a gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng t he- 10-

s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd u s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . K im b e r, 1 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 7 . S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te “ ifth e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he affi davi t s , i f any s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he m ovi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Pi t m an v. B l ue C r os s & B l ue Shi el d of O kl ahoma, 217 F. 3d 1291, 1295 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) (cit ing F E D . R . C IV . P . 5 6 (c)). O n appea l , A l ber t s on’ s ar gues t her e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he re c o rd to su p p o rt its d e n ial o fb e n e fits a n d th a t th e d istric t co u rt, d e sp ite c laim in g to a p p lya n a rb itrar ya n d c a p ric io u s s tan d a rd o fre v iew , ac tu a lly and err oneous l yr evi ew ed i t s deci s i on t o denyB uckar dtbenefi t s undera de n o v o stan d ard . S p ec ifi ca ll y , A lbertson ’s claim s tha t th e d istri ct co u rt d i s r e g a r d e d t h e fi n d i n g s o ft w o c o n s u l t i n g p h y s i c i a n s a n d t h e r e s u l t s o ft w o ind ep en d en t FC E s in the rec o rd a n d inap p rop ri atelyco n side red B u ck ard t’ s aw ar d of SSD B . I n r es pons e, B uckar dtcont ends t hatt her e w as no m edi cal evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor tA l ber t s on’ s deni al of bene fi t s and the r ecor d w as r epl et e w i t h evi dence t hatB uckar dtm ett he Pl an’ s defi ni t i on of t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y. A l ber t s on’ s fi r s tar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yi gnor ed the o p inion s o f tw o co n su lt ing p h y sici an s, D r. Jam es M o relan d an d D r. T heodor e W al t er s , w ho r evi ew ed B uckar dt ’ s cl ai m and det erm i ned thats he- 11-

w a s n o t to tallyd isa b led u n d e r th e P lan . In re sp o n se , B u c k a rd t co rre c tly a r g u e s t h a tt h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s n o me d i c a l fi n d i n g s o ro p i n i o n s o ft h e s e t w o cons ul t i ng phy s i ci ans . T he r ecor d m er el ycont ai ns t he i ni t i al s “J M ” and “TW ” on tw o admi ni s t r at i ve form s deny i ng B uckar dtbenefi t s and uphol di ng her den i al of b enefi t s. T here i s no v eri fi cat i on i n the r ecord o f w ho t hese i ni t i al s i dent i fy . E ven i f D r . M or el and and D r . W al t er s i ni t i al ed the ci t ed fo rm s , th e re is n o in d ic a tio n w h a t th e irin itia ls w e re m e a n t to s ig n ify . B e c a u s e t h e s e i n i t i a l s d o n o tr e p r e s e n tt h e me d i c a l o p i n i o n s o ft w o c o n su lti n g p h y sic ian s, th e re w e re p ro p e rlyd isre g a rd e d b yth e d istric t co u rt. A l ber t s on’ s nextar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l ydi s count ed t he r es ul t s of tw o i ndepende ntFC E s , bot h of w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatB uckar dt was c a p a b l e o fmod i fi e d s e d e n t a r ywor k . Buc k a r d tc o u n t e r s t h a tt h e s e FCEs w er e notm edi cal eval uat i ons and offer ed no opi ni on on w hatt ype of s edent aryw or k s he coul d per for m . I n addi t i on, B uckar dtcont ends t hatt he r ecor d r evea l s t hats he ca nnotunder go r ehabi l i t at i ve empl oym entor vocat i onal r ehabi l i t at i on beca us e of he rpai n. T he ther api s tw ho admi ni s t er ed B uckar dt ’ s fi r s tFC E concl uded that s he w as capa bl e of modi fi ed s edent aryw or k as l ong as s he coul d t r ans i t i on betw een s t andi ng and s i t t i ng as neede d. H e not ed thatB uckar dts el f- l i m i t ed herw ei ght ed ac t i vi t i es and w as abl e t o per for m m os tof heract i vi t i es and po stures ata higher l evel than she had rat ed h ers el f. T he ther apis tal so- 12-

not ed thats he l i m ped l es s w hen s he w as unaw ar e of obs ervat i on and di d not per for m cons i s t ent l yt hr oughoutt he func t i onal t es ts es s i on. T he s econd FC E w as per for m ed fi ve mont hs l at erbya di ffe r ent th e ra p ist a t a d iffe re n t fa c ili ty . T h is th e ra p ist n o ted B u c k a rd t’s c o m p lain ts of cons t antpai n and herus e of pa i n- r el i evi ng drugs . H e comm ent ed that B uck ardtexp eri enced high pain l evels aft er per form i ng reachi ng act i vit i es, di d notexhi bi tpai n m agni fi cat i on, w as cooper at i ve dur i ng t es t i ng, and that val i di t ys cor es demonst r at ed maxi m um effor ti n atl eas tfourof fi ve cat egor i es . T he ther api s ts t at ed thatB uckar dtr epor t ed hi gh pai n l evel s and w as “t ear ful j us tpr i ort o l eavi ng, ” butul t i m at el ydet erm i ned thatB uckar dt m eta phy s i cal demand cl as s i fi cat i on fors edent aryw or k, w i t h a l i m i t at i on on herl i ft i ng r equi r ement s . R O A at67. B ot h phy s i cal t her api s t s w ho admi ni s t er ed B uckar dt ’ s FC E s r eac hed t he s ame ul t i m at e conc l us i on t hatB uckar dtw as capa bl e of modi fi ed sed en taryw o rk. T h e re su lt s o f th ese tw o ind ep en d en t FC E s p rov ide m o re th a n a sc in til la o fe v id e n c e th a t B u c k a rd t d o e s n o t h a v e “ th e c o m p lete i nabi l i t y ” t o “per form anyand eve r ydut yof anygai nful occupa t i on for w hi ch . . . s he i s r eas onabl yfi t t ed byt r ai ni ng, educa t i on orexper i ence . . . . ” Id. at11 1 (em ph asi s added ). T he F C E s contai n som e con t radi ct oryfi nd i ng s, i ncl udi ng t hatB uckar dthad t o change pos tur es fr equent l ydur i ng t he eval uat i on, exper i ence d hi gh pai n l evel s atcert ai n t i m es dur i ng t he t es t i ng,- 13-

re p o rte d d ifficu ltysittin g , sta n d in g , w a lk in g , an d liftin g , an d re p o rte d p a in th a t p re v e n te d h e r fro m h o b b ie s , s p o rt s , s e x u a l r e la tio n s , c h o re s , a n d w o rk . H o w e v e r, d e sp ite n o tin g th e se d ifficu lti e s, b o th th e ra p ists u lti m a tely concl uded thatB uckar dtw as capa bl e of modi fi ed s edent aryw or k. W hen r evi ew i ng undert he arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous s t andar d, “[t ] he A dm i nis t rat or[’ s] decis i on need no tbe the on l yl og i cal on e no r even t he b est one. I tneed onl ybe s uffi ci ent l ys uppor t ed byfac t s w i t hi n [hi s ] know l edge t o count era cl ai m t hati tw as arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous . ” K i m ber , 196 F. 3d at 1098. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta p p e a r e d t o d i s c o u n tt h e r e s u l t s o fBuc k a r d t ’ s FCEs beca us e ther e w as no evi dence i n t he r ecor d as t o w hats edent aryw or k s he w a s “ re a s o n a b ly fitte d b ytr a in in g , e d u c a tio n o r e x p e ri e n c e ” to p e rfo rm . R O A at111. H ow ever , t he Pl an does notr equi r e A l ber t s on’ s t o i dent i fy al t ernat i ve j obs as par tof i t s deni al of bene fi t s and B uckar dthas ci t ed no author i t yt o t he contr ary . I ns t ead, B uckar dtar gues t hatt he FC E s ar e not m edi cal fi ndi ngs and thatot herevi dence i n t he r ecor d demonst r at es t hats he m eet s t he Pl an’ s defi ni t i on of t ot al di s abi l i t y . She not es t hathert r eat i ng p h y sici an d eterm ined that sh e is co m p let elyu n ab le t o p erfo rm an yan d ev ery dut yof anygai nful empl oym entand thats he i s unabl e t o under go vocat i onal re h a b ili tatio n . F in a lly , sh e u rg e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r b e c a u se it m er el ycons i der ed, butdi d notr el yupon, heraw ar d of SSD B i n det erm i ni ng- 14-

t hat A l bert son’s deci si on w as arbitraryand capri ci ou s. Itis true that “[ s]ub stan ti ali tyo f th e e v iden ce is ba sed u p o n the re co rd as a w hol e. I n det erm i ni ng w hethert he evi dence i n s uppor tof the admi ni s t r at or ’ s deci s i on i s s ubs t ant i al , w e must‘ t ake[ ] i nt o acc ount w hat everi n t he r ecor d fai r l ydetr act s fr om i t s w ei ght . ’ ” C al dw el l , 287 F. 3d at1282. H ow ever , t he cha l l enges B uckar dtl evi es agai ns tt he r es ul t s of the FC E s do nots uffi ci ent l ynegat e the w ei ghtof evi dence i n s uppor tof A l ber t s on’ s deci s i on t o denybenefi t s . Fi r s t , B uckar dtci t es no author i t yfor her ar gu m ent that A l bert son’s canno trel yup on t he F C E fi nd i ng s becau se t heyar e notm edi cal opi ni ons . Sever al ci r cui t s have c oncl uded thatt he resu lt s o f F C E s m ayserv e a s su b stan ti al ev iden ce fo r a p lan a d m inistrator’s deci s i on t o denybenefi t s . See G annon v. M etr o. L i fe I ns . C o. , 360 F. 3d 211, 213 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( concl udi ng t hati tw as r eas onabl e fora pl an admi ni s t r at ort o r el yupon an FC E as evi dence s uppor t i ng a det erm i nat i on t hatcl ai m antdi d notm eetpl an’ s defi ni t i on of di s abi l i t y ) ; J acks on v. M etr o. L ife In s. C o . , 3 0 3 F . 3 d 8 8 4 , 8 8 8 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (no ti n g that an F C E ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t cla im a n t co u ld d o lig h t w o rk w a s e n o u g h to c o n stitu te su b stan ti al ev iden ce fo r de n ial o f b en efit s). W h ile it is tru e th a t D r. Irish c o n c lu d e d th a t B u c k a rd t w a s c u rre n tly unabl e “t o per form anyand eve r ydut yof anygai nful occupa t i on” and that B uckar dt ’ s pai n l evel s w oul d pr ohi bi therfr om under goi ng r ehabi l i t at i ve- 15-

empl oym entorvocat i onal r ehabi l i t at i on, an ER I SA pl an admi ni s t r at ori s not r e q u i r e d t o g i v e s p e c i a l we i g h tt o t h e o p i n i o n o fa t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n . RO C a t 4 8 . A s s tate d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, [ p ]la n a d m in istra to rs, o fc o u rse , m a yn o t ar b itrar ilyre fu se to cr edi ta cl ai m ant ’ s r el i abl e evi dence , i ncl udi ng t he opi ni ons of a tre a tin g p h y sic ian . B u t, w e h o ld , co u rts h a v e n o w a rra n t to re q u ire a d m in istra to rs a u to m a tica llyto a c c o rd sp e c ial w e ig h t to t he o pini on s of a clai m ant’ s phy si ci an; nor m aycou rt s i m po se on pl an admi ni s t r at or s a di s cr et e bur den of e xpl anat i on w hen t heycr edi tr el i abl e evi dence t hatconfl i ct s w i t h a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s eval uat i on. B l ack & D ecke rD i s abi l i t yPl an v. N or d, 5 3 8 U . S . 8 2 2 , 8 3 4 (20 0 3 ). F inally , itis un clea r w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rtreli ed u p o n B u ck ard t’ s aw ar d of SSD B i n det erm i ni ng t hatA l ber t s on’ s deni al of bene fi t s w as arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous . T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d not e thatB uckar dthad r ece i ved SSD B benefi t s , w hi ch meantt hats he w as notper for m i ng su b sta n tial g a in fu l ac tiv ity , h a d a se v e re m e d ica llyd e ter m in a b le im p a ir m e n t, a n d w a s u n a b le to a dju s t fro m h e r p a s t w o rk to o th e r w o rk . H ow ever , ourfocus m us tr emai n upon t he i s s ue pr es ent ed her e: w hether B u ck ard t m et th e P lan’s d efinit ion o f to tal d isab il ity . B ec au se th e P lan’s r equi r ement s ar e noti dent i cal t o t he r equi r ement s forSSD B , w hether B u c k a r d tme tt h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t yAd m i n i s t r a t i o n ’ s r e q u i r e m e n t s fo rS S D B i s notr el evantt o ouri nqui r y , and s houl d notbe cons i der ed. T h e re su lts o fth e F C E s p ro v id e m o re th a n a sc in til la o fe v id e n c e in s uppor tof A l ber t s on’ s deni al of bene fi t s and “a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ght- 16-

acc ept[thi s evi dence ] as adequa t e t o s uppor tt he conc l us i on r eac hed by [ A lb e rtso n ’s] .” S a n d o v a l, 96 7 F .2 d a t 3 8 2 . B e c a u se th e re su lts o fb o th FC E s pr ovi de s ubs t ant i al evi dence upon w hi ch A l ber t s on’ s coul d have ba s ed it s d ec isi o n to d en yB u ck ard t l o n g -t erm d isab il ityb en efit s, the d istri ct co u rt e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g Bu c k a r d ts u mma r yj u d g m e n to n h e rERI S A c l a i m . III . W e R E V E R S E th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o fsu m m a ryju d g m e n t in B uckar dt ’ s favorand R E M A N D w i t h di r ect i ons t o t he di s t r i ctcour tt o ent er j ud gm ent i n fav or of A l bert son’s. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge