Opinion ID: 51197
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Equitable Relief Claim

Text: Helms has stated a cause of action and has an appropriate remedy under § 502(a)(1)(B). As a result, we affirm the magistrate judge’s dismissal of Helms’s 10 The dissent cites non-binding caselaw that suggests a remand to the plan administrator may be the appropriate course of action. We disagree. As the majority in Levinson held, we too find that “[Aetna] had more than adequate opportunities to establish an administrative record containing evidence contradicting [Helms’s] evidence pointing to disability . . . . [Aetna] did not do this.” See 245 F.3d at 1328. 29 claim for ERISA § 502(a)(3) equitable relief. See Jones v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1065, 1072-73 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A]n ERISA plaintiff with an ‘adequate remedy’ under Section 502(a)(1)(B) could not alternatively plead and proceed under Section 502(a)(3).”).