Case Name: Karen R. ROSBY, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-24
Citations: 391 F. App'x 579
Docket Number: No. 09-3648
Parties: Karen R. ROSBY, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY of America, Appellee.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 579–579

Head Matter:
Karen R. ROSBY, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY of America, Appellee.
No. 09-3648.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 13, 2010.
Filed: Aug. 24, 2010.
Karen R. Rosby, Sherwood, AR, pro se.
David Michael Donovan, Watts & Donovan, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Karen Rosby appeals the district court's affirmance of Unum Life Insur-anee Company of America's (Unum's) termination of long-term disability benefits in this action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
After careful de novo review of the record, we conclude that Unum, the administrator of Rosby's employer-based disability plan, did not abuse its discretion in terminating Rosby's disability benefits because its decision was supported by substantial evidence that Rosby could perform the material and substantial duties of her job, as detailed in the district court's opinion. See Norris v. Citibank, N.A. Disability Plan (501), 308 F.3d 880, 883-84 (8th Cir.2002) (appellate standard of review and applicable standard for reviewing plan administrator's decision under ERISA). We also decline to remand based on a Social Security Administration decision that was not part of the administrative record or binding on Unum, see Wakkinen v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 531 F.3d 575, 583 (8th Cir.2008) (examining only evidence before plan administrator when benefits decision was made); Rutledge v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 481 F.3d 655, 660-61 (8th Cir.2007) (ERISA plan administrator not bound by Social Security Administration decision), or based on Rosby's dissatisfaction with counsel's assistance, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir.1988) (no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.