Case Name: Patricia ELWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT & T, INC. Defendant, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., AT & T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1 - AT & T Disability Income Program, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-20
Citations: 427 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 10-14346
Parties: Patricia ELWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT & T, INC. Defendant, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., AT & T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1 — AT & T Disability Income Program, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 709–709

Head Matter:
Patricia ELWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT & T, INC. Defendant, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., AT & T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1 — AT & T Disability Income Program, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-14346
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 20, 2011.
Gregory David Swartwood, The Nation Law Firm, Longwood, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
James R. Glenister, Ruth Heinzman Fife, BellSouth Corporation, Atlanta, GA, Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Ford & Harrison LLP, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Elwood filed this action seeking recovery of short-term disability benefits and long-term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, having concluded, after review, that the claims administrator's decision to terminate short-term disability benefits was not "wrong," i.e., one the court disagreed with. Elwood appeals.
Elwood argues that the district court erred because: (1) the weight of the evidence was that the claims administrator's decision was not only wrong, but arbitrary and capricious; and (2) the claims administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious because of its failure to have the claim reviewed by a neuropsychologist, contrary to ERISA regulations, and in disregard of its own peer reviewer.
Having carefully considered the matter, we find no error. The district court's order on summary judgment (R. 39) addresses the arguments now made on appeal, and rejects them. We find no error in either the district court's analysis of these arguments or its decision to reject them.
AFFIRMED.