Rhonda Henderson v. Hartford Life, No. 15-1344 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1344 RHONDA HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:14-cv-04052-HMH) Argued: March 22, 2016 Decided: April 20, 2016 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: John Robert Peace, JOHN ROBERT PEACE, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Debbie Weston Harden, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Katherine T. Lange, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rhonda Henderson appeals the district court’s order granting judgment to Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”) in her Retirement Income § 1001 seq., et civil Security suit Act challenging disability benefits. brought of 1974 Hartford’s under the (“ERISA”), denial Employee 29 of U.S.C. long-term We affirm. When a party appeals the grant of judgment in an ERISA case, we applying court. Cir. review the the same district legal court’s standards determination employed by de the novo, district Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 622, 629 (4th 2010). administrator Where, as discretion here, to a benefits construe its plan gives its and make provisions benefits determinations, “a court reviewing the administrator’s decision must review only for abuse of discretion.” Fortier v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 2012). As a result, we will not disturb the administrator’s discretionary decision as long as “it is reasonable, even if [we] would have reached a different conclusion.” Id. (quoting Haley v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 77 F.3d 84, 89 (4th Cir. 1996)). “[A]n administrator’s decision is reasonable ‘if it is the result of a deliberate, principled reasoning process and if it is supported by substantial Disability evidence.’” Plan, 514 F.3d Evans 315, 2 322 v. Eaton (4th Corp. Cir. Long 2008) Term (quoting Bernstein 1995)). v. CapitalCare, Inc., 70 F.3d 783, 788 (4th Cir. Our abuse-of-discretion analysis is guided by the eight factors set forth in Booth v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d 335, 342–43 (4th Cir. 2000). With these factors in mind, we have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and conclude that Hartford did not abuse its discretion disability in benefits. denying Henderson’s Accordingly, we claim affirm for the long-term district court’s judgment. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
