## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 18 47

__ __ __ __ __ _ Troy J. Daig le , *

* App el la nt , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s
v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn * Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Hart fo rd Life a nd * Acci de nt Ins ur an ce Co m

pa ny, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 2, 2 01 1 Fi le d: Decem

be r 7, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re LOKEN, BYE, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
Troy J. Daig le ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s o r d e r gr an ti ng Hart fo rd Life an d 1 Acci de nt In su ran ce Co m pa ny’ s (Hart fo rd ’s) cro ss
- mo t i o n fo r jud gm en t on th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd in th is Em pl oym en t Ret ire m en t In co m e Secu rit y Act (ERISA) la wsu it

. Upo n de no vo rev ie w, se e Men z v. Pro ct er & Gam bl e Heal th Care Pl an , 52 0 F.3 d 86 5, 86 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), we fin d no ab us e o f d i s cret io n in th e de ci si on to
te rm in at e Daig le ’s l on g- te rm di sa bi li ty b en efi ts

. See Green v. Un io n S ec. In s. Co .,

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri c t J u dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.64 6 F.3 d 10 42 , 10 50 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s ta ti ng an ad m in is tra to r’s de ci si on sh ou ld be

affi r med i f it is reas on ab le , i.e., su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce; de ci si on is

reas on ab le if reas on ab le pe rs on co ul d ha ve —n ot wou ld ha ve —re ach ed si m il ar de ci si on , gi ve n ev id en ce be fo re hi m ). Co n t r a r y to Daig le ’s as se rti on s on ap pe al , H art fo rd was no t req ui red to co nd uc t an in de pe nd en t m ed ic al ex am in at i o n

. S e e Ru tl ed ge v. Lib ert y Life Ass ur an ce Co

. of Bo st on , 48 1 F.3 d 65 5, 66 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (s ta ti ng an ERISA pl an ad m in is tra to r ne ed no t or de r in de pe nd en t m ed ic al

ex am in at io n whe n in su red ’s su pp or ti ng ev id en ce is faci al ly in su ffi ci en t); se e al so Man ni ng v. Am

. Rep ub li c In s. Co ., 60 4 F.3 d 10 30 , 10 41 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (co nc lu di ng it is no t un reas on ab le fo r p l a n a d mi n i s tra to r to ba se de ni al of be ne fit s on la ck of ob jecti ve ev id en ce )

. Fu rth er, as to Hart fo rd ’s rel ia nc e on th e op in io ns of two

rev ie win g or th op ed ic ph y si ci an s co nc ern in g Daig le ’s fu nc ti on al it y , Hart fo rd was no t
req ui red to acco rd sp eci al weig ht to th e op in io ns of Daig le ’s pr im ary care ph y si ci an s,

se e Mi dg et t v. W as hi ng to n Gro up In t’l Lon g Term Dis ab il it y Pl an , 56 1 F.3 d 88 7, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), es pe ci al ly whe re th ey ap pe ared to be ba se d m os tl y on hi s su bjec ti ve rep or ts

. Fi na ll y , it w a s r eas on ab le fo r Hart fo rd to us e vi de ot ap e su rv ei ll an ce to ob se rv e Daig le ’s co nd it io n, se e Green , 64 6 F.3 d at 10 52 (s ta ti ng vi de o ev id en ce ne ed

no t co nc lu si ve ly es ta bl is h a cl ai m an t can wor k fu ll ti m e, bu t it do es pr ov id e an ot he r fo rm of ob

jecti ve ev id en ce up on whi ch an ERISA pl an ad m in is tra to r m ay ba se it s cl ai m s de te rm in at io n) ; fu rth erm or e, th is was on ly on e pi ece of th e ev id en ce Hart fo rd ci te d i n i ts de ci si on

.

The di st ric t co ur t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-