Opinion ID: 1359690
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: May 2005 Refusal to Consider Further Appeals

Text: Both of the letters Hobson submitted after MetLife informed her that it would not consider any further appeals failed to provide additional, objective evidence that she was disabled. The first letter from Dr. Subrt merely clarified that he was not qualified to opine on whether she suffered non-dermatologic disabilities, and explained that he did not discern any dermatologic disability. The second letter from Hobson's psychologist stated that Hobson was unable to function or work due to her depression, but did not include or append any evidence substantiating this conclusion. In light of the substantial evidence in Hobson's file supporting MetLife's determination that she was not disabled from sedentary work, we find that MetLife did not abuse its discretion in May 2005 by refusing to consider Hobson's request for a further appeal.