Opinion ID: 152240
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Selective Consideration of Evidence

Text: Holmstrom has offered sufficient evidence to establish continuing disability under the plan, and MetLife has failed to support its contrary conclusions with sound reasoning in the record. See Leger, 557 F.3d at 835. Holmstrom's key evidencethe FCEs, Dr. Vant's opinion, the consistent CRPS diagnoses, the surgeries, the Social Security disability determination (under more stringent disability criteria), the strong pain medication regimen, and the results of the neurocognitive testingis all competent evidence that supports a finding of total disability. MetLife's rejection of that evidence has been based on selective readings that are not reasonably consistent with the entire picture. This approach is another hallmark of an arbitrary and capricious decision. See Majeski v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 478, 483-84 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that denial decision was arbitrary where insurer selectively relied on pieces of evidence to support denial of benefits, while that evidence in context demonstrated disability); Leger, 557 F.3d at 832-33 (denial decision was arbitrary where insurer cherry-picked the statements from her medical history that supported the decision to terminate her benefits, while ignoring a wealth of evidence to support her claim that she was totally disabled); see also Glenn v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 461 F.3d 660, 672-74 & n. 4 (6th Cir.2006) (holding denial decision was arbitrary where plan selectively considered evidence to reach decision unsupported by the record as a whole), aff'd 554 U.S. 105, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008) (approving Sixth Circuit's reasoning).