Karen Rosby v. Unum Life Insurance, No. 09-3648 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - ERISA. Plan administrator's decision to terminate benefits was supported by substantial evidence that plaintiff could perform the material and substantial duties of her job.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3648 ___________ Karen R. Rosby, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Unum Life Insurance Company of * America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: August 13, 2010 Filed: August 24, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Karen Rosby appeals the district court s1 affirmance of Unum Life Insurance Company of America s (Unum s) termination of long-term disability benefits in this action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). After careful de novo review of the record, we conclude that Unum, the administrator of Rosby s employer-based disability plan, did not abuse its discretion 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. in terminating Rosby s disability benefits because its decision was supported by substantial evidence that Rosby could perform the material and substantial duties of her job, as detailed in the district court s opinion. See Norris v. Citibank, N.A. Disability Plan (501), 308 F.3d 880, 883-84 (8th Cir. 2002) (appellate standard of review and applicable standard for reviewing plan administrator s decision under ERISA). We also decline to remand based on a Social Security Administration decision that was not part of the administrative record or binding on Unum, see Wakkinen v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 531 F.3d 575, 583 (8th Cir. 2008) (examining only evidence before plan administrator when benefits decision was made); Rutledge v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 481 F.3d 655, 660-61 (8th Cir. 2007) (ERISA plan administrator not bound by Social Security Administration decision), or based on Rosby s dissatisfaction with counsel s assistance, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
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.
