Opinion ID: 1359690
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Weighing of Competing Medical Evaluations

Text: Hobson also contends that MetLife gave undue weight to the opinions of the independent physicians it consulted, first by retaining those consultants, and then by affording more weight to those consultants' opinions than to those of Hobson's treating physicians. We find no merit to Hobson's argument. MetLife had a total of seven independent physicians, none of whom was a MetLife employee, and all of whom were Board-certified in one or more of the specialty areas relevant to Hobson's diagnoses and conditions, review Hobson's file. MetLife did not abuse its discretion by considering these trained physicians' opinions solely because they were selected, and presumably compensated, by Metlife. See Suren, 2008 WL 4104461, at  (That they were paid consultants does not disable MetLife from considering their opinions in making benefits decisions.). Indeed, it is customary for plan administrators to do so in evaluating ERISA claims. Second, MetLife is not required to accord the opinions of a claimant's treating physicians special weight, especially in light of contrary independent physician reports. Black & Decker, 538 U.S. at 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965. Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that MetLife arbitrarily refused to credit Hobson's medical evidence. MetLife's consultants repeatedly attempted to contact Hobson's treating physicians, several of whom concluded that Hobson's diagnoses and conditions did not inhibit her from working. Hobson specifically challenges MetLife's reliance on its independent physicians' reports in determining that she was not disabled due to Dercum's, which these physicians characterized as a rare affliction which nobody is sure about. However, as we have already noted, Hobson's own treating physician, the same one who sent a letter diagnosing Hobson with Dercum's, concluded that she was not disabled due to Dercum's. Thus, there is no merit to Hobson's argument that MetLife unreasonably relied upon speculative and unqualified physicians' opinions.