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

Heading: Consideration of All Medical Evidence

Text: Hobson also alleges that MetLife did not properly consider all of her medical evidence, ignoring her non-physical ailments and co-morbid conditions, the impact of her medications, and her subjective complaints of pain. We have already rejected Hobson's allegation that MetLife ignored her subjective complaints in the prior section. We now turn to the remaining evidence which Hobson alleges that MetLife arbitrarily and capriciously ignored. There is no merit to Hobson's contentions that MetLife intentionally ignored evidence that she was disabled due to non-physical ailments and co-morbid conditions, that is, conditions that pertain to two or more disorders simultaneously  here, fatigue, inability to concentrate, cognitive functioning, and memory loss  and that MetLife should have evaluated such evidence together, rather than in isolation. MetLife had two independent psychiatrist consultants evaluate Hobson's file. The first concluded that Hobson's psychiatric and cognitive functioning [wa]s essentially within normal limits, that there were no objective findings of any cognitive impairment or problems with memory or cognition, and that her own correspondences indicated that her non-physical ailments did not impair her ability to function. The second explained that Hobson's depression did not render her unable to perform her duties, as MetLife mentioned in its March 2005 letter to Hobson. Thus, MetLife expressly considered Hobson's non-physical ailments and co-morbid conditions, and the two consultant reports that Metlife relied upon substantially supported MetLife's denial of Hobson's claim for LTD benefits. See Suren, 2008 WL 4104461, at  (finding that benefit denial was not arbitrary and capricious where independent physicians determined that claimant was not cognitively impaired). We are also not persuaded that MetLife abused its discretion by not taking into consideration the side effects Hobson allegedly suffered due to the daily medications she took to address her conditions. Hobson's brief failed to elaborate on this argument: Specifically, she failed to explain how exactly she had established to Metlife that her medications rendered her unable to work. For example, Hobson could have provided, but did not in fact provide, letters from her treating physicians opining that her medications hindered her functional abilities. As the Tenth Circuit explained in rejecting a similar claim, the question for this court is not whether MetLife made the `correct' decision [but] whether MetLife had a reasonable basis for the decision that it made. Chalker v. Raytheon Co., 291 Fed.Appx. 138, 145 (10th Cir.2008). Here, MetLife reasonably concluded that Hobson remained able to work, relying on the opinions of seven independent consultants, one of whom expressly stated that Hobson ha[d] been on medications for a considerable period of time, and these medications d[id] not give her side effects, according to the medical records reviewed, and another who explained that Hobson appeared cognitively functional, as indicated by her detailed and cogent communications with MetLife. In light of these evaluations, MetLife reasonably concluded that Hobson remained able to function despite taking various medications to treat her medical ailments.