Opinion ID: 2978329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Social Security Determination

Text: -6- No. 08-1990 Kiel v. Life Insurance Company of North America Kiel also insists that LINA arbitrarily ignored her award of Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”). She cites Glenn v. MetLife, 461 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2006), for the proposition “that the plan administrator was arbitrary in failing to consider the award of disability benefits that she secured from the Social Security Administration.” Kiel seeks to estop LINA from disputing her disability because LINA implicitly acknowledged it by encouraging her to apply for SSDI in the first place. But her theory overlooks the difference between Social Security and ERISA benefits. Although the Social Security Administration’s decision is relevant, it is not dispositive. For instance, Social Security determinations follow a highly deferential “treating physician rule” that does not apply in ERISA cases. Nord, 538 U.S. at 832–33 (“[C]ritical differences between the Social Security disability program and ERISA benefit plans caution against importing a treating physician rule from the former area into the latter.”). Given these differences between the two regulatory schemes, LINA did not take a “blatantly inconsistent” position by denying Kiel’s claim.