Opinion ID: 3050437
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Howard’s Appeal and Review

Text: Howard appealed Hartford’s termination decision. With her appeal, she submitted (1) a letter asserting some of her activities captured during surveillance were necessary to assist family members and advising her condition was more severe on some days than others, and (2) additional medical examination reports 7 Case: 13-11619 Date Filed: 04/15/2014 Page: 8 of 16 and Attending Physician Statements in Support of Disability completed by Dr. Decker and Dr. Orlando Florete, a pain management physician.3 Hartford had Dr. Carol Walker, Ph.D., a neuropsychologist, review Howard’s medical records. Dr. Walker concluded “there is no objective data to support psychological or cognitive symptoms that would interfere with [Howard’s] ability to work. . . . Cognitive and psychological issues have not been documented as the focus of treatment by her medical providers.” R at 2293. Dr. Phillip Marion, a physician, also reviewed Howard’s records and opined Howard’s “continued complaints of incapacitating full body pain are inconsistent with her observed functional independence.” R at 2297. Dr. Marion concluded Howard could work as long as she avoided overhead lifting with the left upper extremity. Hartford thereafter notified Howard it was upholding the benefits termination. Hartford explained Howard had been observed “performing activities in excess of her reported limitations and as such, her report is not entirely reliable. Thus, the restrictions and limitations imposed by her physicians, being rooted in Ms. Howard’s report almost exclusively, is likewise an unreliable indicator of Ms. Howard’s functionality.” R at 2275. Hartford concluded Howard was capable of light-duty work and the demands of her employment were of a sedentary capacity; 3 Dr. Florete had diagnosed Howard with fibromyalgia, cervical degenerative disc disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and a left shoulder rotator cuff tear, and described Howard as “totally and permanently disabled.” R at 2025. 8 Case: 13-11619 Date Filed: 04/15/2014 Page: 9 of 16 therefore, “the weight of the evidence continues to support Ms. Howard’s capacity to perform her occupation on a full-time basis.” R at 2275. Howard then filed suit against Hartford under ERISA and sought to reverse Hartford’s decision to discontinue payment of her LTD benefits. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. In support of her motion for summary judgment, Howard attached 30 exhibits. These exhibits included a “Declaration of Howard’s Counsel” regarding the exhibits, transcripts of depositions taken after Howard filed suit, interrogatory answers in this suit, deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, and discovery documents from lawsuits against Hartford to which Howard was not a party, articles and information obtained from the internet, and contracts between Hartford and medical consultant vendors. Because none of the exhibits were available or considered by the Plan administrator, Hartford filed a motion to strike the exhibits. The district judge construed the motion to strike as a motion in limine, granted the motion, and entered summary judgment for Hartford. The judge concluded Hartford’s decision was reasonable, based on the evidence, and the challenged benefits decision was not arbitrary and capricious. Howard v. Hartford Lift & Acc. Ins. Co., 929 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2013). On appeal, Howard argues the district judge erred by refusing to consider the exhibits attached to her 9 Case: 13-11619 Date Filed: 04/15/2014 Page: 10 of 16 motion for summary judgment and failing to consider properly evidence regarding Hartford’s financial conflict of interest.