Case Name: Brad D. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF HUNTINGTON BANC SHARES, et al., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-19
Citations: 162 F. App'x 578
Docket Number: No. 04-4392
Parties: Brad D. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF HUNTINGTON BANC SHARES, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SILER, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 578–582

Head Matter:
Brad D. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF HUNTINGTON BANC SHARES, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-4392.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 19, 2006.
Stanley L. Myers, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Brett K. Bacon, Colleen C. Murnane, Frantz Ward, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SILER, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ROGERS, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Brad D. Kennedy appeals the district court's judgment on the administrative record in favor of defendant UNUM Life Insurance Company of America on Kennedy's claim under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). After reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, this court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the district court's decision for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge King's August 13, 2004, opinion and order. Although Kennedy argues that the district court should have used a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review because UNUM suffered from a conflict of interest, the precedent in this circuit is clear that a conflict is taken into account only as a factor in the court's ordinary arbitrary and capricious review. See, e.g., Kalish v. Liberty Mut./Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 419 F.3d 501, 506 (6th Cir.2005). The district court properly granted judgment on the administrative record in favor of UNUM. Its judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.