T he H onorabl e Fr eder i ck P

. St amp , Jr

. , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Judge f or t he N ort her n D i s t r i ct of W es t V i r gi ni a, * si t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. T e c h n ic a lly, the p la n it se lf is the na m e d d e fen d a n t. A s its ad m inistra to r, U n u m re p re se n ts th e p la n in this 1 l i t i gat i o n. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0556n.06 F iled: Septem ber 11, 2008 No. 07-3256 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

KI M ROUMEL I OTE, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. L ONG TERM DI SAB I L I T Y PL AN F OR EM PL OY EE S OF WORT HI NG TO N I ND UST RI ES, pr o p e r l y s tyl e d a s U N U M L I F E I

N S U RA N CE COMPANY OF A MERI CA, Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T FO R THE S OUTHERN DI STRI CT OF O H IO M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEFORE: M ARTIN and NORRIS, Circuit Jud ges; STAMP , District Judge. * P ER CURIAM . Plaintiff Kim Roum eliote filed a complaint for decla

ratory judgme nt and damag es under the Employ ment Retirement Income Sec urity Act of 1974 ( “ERI SA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, af

ter she was denied long- term disability benef its under a plan a dminist ere d by Unum L ife Insuranc e Company of Amer ica ( “Unum”) and sponsore d by her e mploy er, Worthing ton I nd us tr ies. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt t o U num. Ro um e lio te v . Lo ng Te rm 1 Di sa bil ity Plan for Em plo y e es o f W or thi ng ton In du s. , 475 F. Supp. 2d 742 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Plaintiff appea ls, arguing that the denial of be nefits was “ arbitra ry and ca pricious.”No. 07-3256

Roumeliote v . Long Term Disabili ty Plan

- 2 - Th is c ourt re vie ws de novo a district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in an ERI SA action, applying the same standard used by the district court. Sh e lby Cou nty He alt h Ca reCor

p. v . Co un c il of Indus. W

orkers He alth & W

elfare Trust Fund , 203 F.3d 926, 933 ( 6th Cir. 2000). I n revie wing the district court’s judg ment, we must deter mine whether

the district court a

pplied the prope r standard of

revie w in assessingthe m er i t s o f t h e summary judgme nt motion. I n ERI SA case s, the decisions of a plan admini strator are subject to revie w under the “a rbitrar y and ca pricious” standa

rd if the plan vests discretionar y authority in the administrator. Firestone Tire &Rubber Co. v. Bruc h , 48 9 U .S. 10 1, 10 9 ( 19 89 ); W endy’ s Int’l v. Karsko , 94 F.3d 1010, 1012 ( 6th Cir. 1996)

. In this case, the pla int if

f c on c e de s th a t th e “ arb itr ary and c a pr ic io us ” sta

nd ard of re vie w a pp lie s to he r c la im. Whil e thi s st and ard

is h ig hly de fe re nti a l, an d we are ob lig e d to up ho ld a be ne fi t de te rm inatio n if

it is r a tio na l in

lig ht of the pla

n’ s pro vis ion s, the sta

nd ard do e s not re qu ir e us me re ly to r ub be r s tamp the administrator’s de cision. Jones v . Metro. L ife Ins. Co. , 385 F.3d 654, 661 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted). Th is c ir c uit ha s re c og nize d th a t a po te nti a l c on fl ic t of

int e re st e xists wh e n th e pla n is bo th the “ d e c is io n - ma

k e r , d e te r mi n in g w h ic hc la im s ar e c o v e r e d , an d a ls o th e p ay o r

o f th o s e c la ims.” Calvert v. Firs tar Fin., Inc. , 409 F.3d 286, 292 (6th Cir. 2005)

. In the instant c ase, the district court ind ic a te d th a t th e po te nti a l f or su c h a c on fl ic t e xiste d w ithre sp e c t to Un um: I n e va luatin g the re c or d, . . . th e Court is r e qu ir e d to c on sid e r o nly the fa c ts known to the plan administrator at the time the final deci s i o n wa s made to deny d is a b il it y b e n e f its. Moon v. U

num Provident Corp. , 405 F.3d 373, 378 ( 6th Cir. 20 05 ); see also Miller v. M etropolitan L ife Ins. Co. , 925 F.2 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 6 (6th Cir. 1991). The Court i s als o require d to remain c og nizant of the potential inherent conflict of inter est that arise s when a n insurer such as Unum acts a s both the decision maker on a c l ai m and the potential pay or of that c laim. Cal v e rt , 409 F.3d at 292No. 07-3256

Roumeliote v . Long Term Disabili ty Plan

- 3 - (“ [t]he po ssi ble c on fl ic t of int e re st i nh e re nt i n th is s itu a ti on sh ou ld be take n into acc ount as a fa ctor in deter mining whe ther [Unum’s] decision was arbitra ry and capr icious.”).

Ro um e lio te , 475 F. Supp. 2d at 746 (citation om itted). This term t he United States Supreme Court

re- examined the manner

in which re viewingcourts ar e to assess the eff ect of an inher ent conf

lict of interest. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn , 128 S.Ct . 2343 (2008). Particularly in light of the f

act that the Court wa s r e vie wi nga

de c isi on of thi s c ir c uit , w e de lay e d o ur de c isi on in t his c a se un til we c ou ld

a sc e rt a in whe the r t

he Court int e nded to alt er the ana ly sis . It di d n ot. Rathe r, the Court e xpre ssl y approve d of the a

pproac h first enunc iated in Firestone , su pra , and followed by

this court in Glenn : “[W ]hen judg es revie w the lawfulne ss of benef it de nials, they will of

ten take acc ount o f s ev er al differ ent consider ations of which a conflict of inter est is one.” Glenn , 128 S. Ct . at 2351. In the instant case , the district court re cog nized the potent i al for a n inhere nt conflict of int e re st a nd we ig he d it a s a fa c tor . A s w ithso many ERI SA c a se s invo lvi ngthe de nia l of be ne fi ts, the re cord c ontains medical e vidence to support the positions of each pa rt y . Fo r that re ason, the standard of re view play s a par ticularly signific ant role, of

ten tipping the ba lance in favor of the plan administrator’s de nial. That is the case here. We have had an opportunity to reviewthe re cord, the briefs of t h e p arties, a

nd have he ard or al ar g ument. Although w e ar e sy mpathetic to plaintiff’s position, we ag ree with the district c ourt that the plan administrator’s decision was not a rbitrar y and capr icious. Be cause our ana ly sis does not differ in a ny signific ant form f

rom that provided by

the district court in its publis hed dec ision, a rea soned opinion on our part would serve no useful purpose

.No. 07-3256

Roumeliote v . Long Term Disabili ty Plan

- 4 - Th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is aff irm ed

.