Opinion ID: 768003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the ebc's decision to deny mrs. sahulka the sdb

Text: 16 Because we review the EBC's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, we must affirm if a reasonable person could have reached a similar decision, given the evidence before him, not that a reasonable person would have reached that decision. Cash v. Wal-Mart Group Health Plan, 107 F.3d 637, 641 (8th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). We consider only the evidence that was before the administrator when the claim was denied. See Brown v. Seitz Foods, Inc. Disability Benefit Plan, 140 F.3d 1198, 1200 (8th Cir. 1998). We do not, however, substitute our own weighing of the evidence for that of the administrator. See Cash, 107 F.3d at 641. 17 In reviewing the EBC's decision, we note that the EBC was operating under two levels of discretion: (1) general discretion to conclusively determine eligibility benefits and construe terms of the Plan; and (2) under the SDB provision, discretion to determine to whom payments would be made and the amount of such payments. The issue before the EBC was whether the appellant had established the requisite financial need under the Plan for an award of the discretionary SDB. The EBC based its decision on the dependency and financial need of the [appellant] following the death [of Mr. Sahulka]. The EBC concluded that there was no evidence of financial need based on the assets owned by Mrs. Sahulka, the assets received as a result of Mr. Sahulka's death, and the fact that Mrs. Sahulka had not exhausted all means available to her in reducing her financial obligations. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the decision to deny Mrs. Sahulka's claim for the SDB is supported by substantial evidence.