Case Name: Patrick J. POWERS, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-14
Citations: 277 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 07-2365
Parties: Patrick J. POWERS, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 277
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
Patrick J. POWERS, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.
No. 07-2365.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 7, 2008.
Filed: May 14, 2008.
Kenneth R. Shemin, Shemin & Hendren, argued, Fayetteville, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Staci Dumas Carson, David Michael Donovan, Watts & Donovan, argued, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit. Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Patrick J. Powers appeals the district court's order denying his summary judgment motion and dismissing his Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit against UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (UNUM) arising from the denial of continued short-term-disability benefits. Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, which the parties agree applied below, UNUM's decision needed only to be reasonable, that is, supported by substantial evidence. See Dillard's Inc. v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 456 F.3d 894, 899 (8th Cir.2006) (plan administrator's decision will be reversed only if it was arbitrary and capricious); Norris v. Citibank, N.A. Disability Plan (501), 308 F.3d 880, 883-84 (8th Cir.2002) (reviewing de novo district court's application of abuse-of-discretion standard).
We agree with the district court that the decision to deny Powers benefits as of January 11, 2004, was supported by substantial evidence. As of that date Powers did not meet the second prong of the plan's definition of disabled, i.e., that he was "not working in any occupation." Given the plan's plain and unambiguous definition of disability, it is irrelevant why Powers returned to work at a lower-paying position for another employer. We also agree with the district court that the term "gainful occupation" is not relevant because it does not appear in the section of the plan addressing short-term disability, and that the recurrent-disability provision does not apply in these circumstances. Finally, Powers's remaining arguments (raised for the first time on appeal) are unavailing.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.