Opinion ID: 77986
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The District Court Applied the Correct Legal Standard.

Text: Glazer argues that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment because there were factual disputes about whether Glazer was disabled, but this argument misunderstands our standard of review. Our review of a denial of benefits is for whether the decision of the administrator was arbitrary and capricious. Jett v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 890 F.2d 1137, 1139 (11th Cir.1989). When conducting a review of an ERISA benefits denial under an arbitrary and capricious standard (sometimes used interchangeably with an abuse of discretion standard), the function of the court is to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the decision, based upon the facts as known to the administrator at the time the decision was made. Id. [W]e review both the administrator's construction of the plan and concomitant factual findings. See Paramore v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 129 F.3d 1446, 1451 (11th Cir.1997). This Court has created a well-defined series of steps in reviewing a denial of benefits decision in an ERISA case to determine whether the decision of the administrator was arbitrary and capricious. Tippitt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 457 F.3d 1227, 1231-32 (11th Cir. 2006). At each step, the court makes a determination that results in either the progression to the next step or the end of the inquiry. Id. at 1232 (quoting HCA Health Servs. of Ga., Inc. v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 982, 993 (11th Cir.2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). First, the court examin[es] the plan documents to determine whether they grant the administrator discretion in making benefit determinations. Id. If the administrator has discretion under the plan, then at a minimum, the court applies arbitrary and capricious review and possibly heightened arbitrary and capricious review. Id. (quoting HCA, 240 F.3d at 993) (internal quotation mark omitted). Under either form of review, the court is limited to the facts as known to the administrator at the time the decision was made. Jett, 890 F.2d at 1139. [R]egardless of whether the arbitrary and capricious review or the heightened form of that standard of review applies, the court reviews the decision by the administrator to determine whether it was wrong. Tippitt, 457 F.3d at 1232; see also Levinson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 245 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir.2001) (quoting Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 898 F.2d 1556, 1566 n. 12 (11th Cir.1990)). A decision is wrong if, after a review of the decision of the administrator from a de novo perspective, the court disagrees with the administrator's decision. Williams, 373 F.3d at 1138 & n. 8. The court must consider, based on the record before the administrator at the time its decision was made, whether the court would reach the same decision as the administrator. If the court determines that the plan administrator was right, the analysis ends and the decision is affirmed. Tippitt, 457 F.3d at 1232. Glazer's argument that the district court applied the wrong standard fails. Although there was a dispute about whether Glazer was disabled, there was no dispute about what was in the record when Reliance made its decision. The district court had to review that record and decide whether the resolution of the dispute by Reliance was wrong. The district court reviewed the record and determined that the decision by Reliance was right, which ended the analysis of whether the decision of Reliance was arbitrary and capricious. Id. The district court applied the correct standard of review.