Opinion ID: 171114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: The Plan grants MetLife discretionary authority to determine eligibility for LTD benefits. 1 Therefore, we agree with the district court that MetLife’s decision should be reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard. See Gaither v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 388 F.3d 759, 767 (10th Cir 2004). And “[b]ecause [Chalker] has not raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest warranting an enhanced standard of review, we assume that the pure arbitrary and capricious standard applies.” Buckardt v. Albertson’s, Inc., 221 Fed. App’x 730, 734 (10th 1 In this regard, the Plan provides that “[t]he decisions of the Claims Administrator shall be conclusive and binding on all persons, unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines that such decision was arbitrary and capricious.” -9- Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (citing Fought v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 379 F.3d 997, 1003 (10th Cir.2004)). “The district court’s determination of whether a plan administrator’s decision is arbitrary and capricious is a legal conclusion subject to de novo review.” Rekstad v. U.S. Bancorp, 451 F.3d 1114, 1119 (10th Cir. 2006). “Indicia of arbitrary and capricious decisions include lack of substantial evidence, mistake of law, bad faith, and conflict of interest by the fiduciary.” Caldwell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 287 F.3d 1276, 1282 (10th Cir. 2002). “Substantial evidence is such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached by the decisionmaker.” Id. (alteration, quotations omitted). “Substantial evidences requires more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Sandoval v. Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 967 F.2d 377, 382 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). “When reviewing [MetLife’s decision] under the arbitrary and capricious standard, [MetLife’s] decision need not be the only logical one nor even the best one. It need only be sufficiently supported by facts within [its] knowledge to counter a claim that it was arbitrary or capricious.” Kimber v. Thiokol Corp., 196 F.3d 1092, 1098 (10th Cir. 1999) (alterations, quotations omitted). With this in mind, “[t]he decision will be upheld unless it is not grounded on any reasonable basis.” Id. (quotation omitted). - 10 -