Opinion ID: 71504
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Social Security Administration

Text: Failure to address a contrary SSA award can suggest procedural unreasonableness in a plan administrator's decision. See id. at 2352. This procedural unreasonableness is important in its own right and also justifie[s] the court in giving more weight to the conflict. Id. [A]n ERISA plan administrator's failure to address the Social Security Administration's finding that the claimant was `totally disabled' is yet another factor that can render the denial of further long-term disability benefits arbitrary and capricious. Glenn v. MetLife ( Glenn I ), 461 F.3d 660, 669 (6th Cir.2006), aff'd, Glenn, 128 S.Ct. at 2343. The SSA determined that Schexnayder is fully disabled and unable to perform any work, but Hartford did not address the SSA award in any of its denial letters. Because Hartford failed to acknowledge an agency determination that was in direct conflict with its own determination, [3] its decision was procedurally unreasonable. We agree with the Sixth Circuit's conclusion in Glenn I, that [h]aving benefitted financially from the government's determination that [the plaintiff] was totally disabled Hartford should have at least acknowledged the SSA award. Id. at 669. This procedural unreasonableness justifie[s] the court in giving more weight to [Hartford's] conflict because it suggests financial bias may have affected Hartford's decision. Glenn, 128 S.Ct. at 2352. We also consider the failure to address the SSA's decision as a factor in its own right. Although substantial evidence supported Hartford's decision, the method by which it made the decision was unreasonable, and the conflict, because it is more important under the circumstances, acts as a tiebreaker for us to conclude that Hartford abused its discretion.