Opinion ID: 2971646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Burden’s workers’ compensation agreement.

Text: According to plaintiff, because Hartford’s letter denying benefits did not address a statement in a workers’ compensation settlement agreement between Burden and his employer that Burden did “not retain the physical capacity to return to the same type of work he performed at the time of the injury,” Hartford’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. In its initial denial letter, Hartford did list the workers’ compensation agreement among the materials it considered in making its decision. Plaintiff insists, however, Hartford was also required to state specifically why it disagreed with the unable-to-return-to work statement. We conclude that Hartford’s detailed review of Burden’s medical record rendered further discussion of the workers’ compensation agreement unnecessary. See Hurse v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 02-5496, 77 Fed. Appx. 310, 318 (6th Cir. Sep. 26, 2003) (decision was not arbitrary and capricious where denial letter did not mention a Social Security Administration determination that plaintiff was disabled). III. Ex parte communication with the treating physician. Burden also argues that an ex parte call to his treating physician by Hartford’s independent medical expert evidences the arbitrary and capricious nature of Hartford’s decision. -2- No. 03-6607 Burden v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. Even if improper, however, the other independent evidence identified by Hartford prevents labeling Hartford’s decision arbitrary and capricious. For example, after reviewing the medical record, Hartford’s physician concluded Burden’s subjective complaints exceeded the symptoms one would expect from his diagnosed disease, carpal tunnel syndrome. Burden’s treating physician also supported this conclusion, noting on Burden’s application for disability benefits that his determinations of Burden’s impairments were “based upon subjective complaints.” Burden’s treating physician also stated that Burden could work forty hours per week, with certain restrictions. In view of this evidence and other evidence Hartford reviewed, the ex parte communication with Burden’s treating physician cannot be said to render Hartford’s denial arbitrary and capricious. We affirm. -3-