Sunshine, Lollipops, and Rainbows


Eleventh Circuit finds Denial of Disability Benefits to be Arbitrary and Capricious

Posted by Marissa A. Hornsby | Jul 08, 2022 | 0 Comments

The Plaintiff was a hospital pharmacist for Emory Healthcare, Inc.  She suffered a spinal injury in a fall at work, leaving her in significant pain.  Unum, which insures the Plaintiff's employer-sponsored ERISA disability plan, granted her long-term disability benefits for two years, after which time she was required to prove that she was disabled such that she could not perform “any gainful occupation” for which she is reasonable fitted. 

The Plaintiff continued to experience pain from her spinal injury and significant cognitive side effects from her prescribed gabapentin pain medication.  Most of her treating medical providers supported work restrictions.  However, Unum's in-house reviewers concluded that she could perform certain sedentary work based on a file review and her neurologist's nurse practitioner's phone statement to Unum that she could perform sedentary office work.  As a result, Unum denied Plaintiff's continued disability benefits.  She appealed and submitted a functional capacity (“FCE”) report and neuropsychological evaluation in support of her disability claim.  Her neuropsychological evaluation made clear that she had significant cognitive impairments as a side effect of her pain medication which would prevent her from working.  After her appeal was denied, Plaintiff filed suit.  The district court found that Unum's decision was not arbitrary and capricious.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, finding that Unum's denial was both de novo wrong and unreasonable.  The court found that although there was adequate evidence for Unum to conclude that Plaintiff had the physical capacity to perform sedentary work, there was no reasonable basis to conclude that she had the cognitive ability to work.  Her neuropsychological evaluation indicated cognitive impairments upon which Unum did not obtain a second opinion.  Unum's own reviewing neurologist never disagreed with the conclusion that if Plaintiff's neuropsychological evaluation was accurate, then her cognitive impairments that would prevent her from working in her field.  Instead, Unum's neurologist used questionable reasoning to discard all of the results of the evaluation.  Ultimately, the Court found there was no reasonable basis for Unum to disregard these test results nor to conclude that Plaintiff's activity level demonstrates cognitive capacity consistent with an ability to work.

The Eleventh Circuit thus reversed and remanded the case to the district court to determine benefits due and attorneys' fees.

About the Author

Marissa A. Hornsby

Marissa counsels and represents both corporate and individual clients in a wide array of employment-related concerns, with a sub-specialization in ERISA benefit plans, delivering meaningful outcomes for all involved.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Schedule an Appointment

We are happy to help evaluate your case and begin developing a strategy for legal success. At your first consultation, we begin by reviewing the facts and relevant documents and providing a roadmap for the future handling of your matter. Schedule today by calling 470-33-ERISA or by completing our online intake form.

Experienced ERISA and Employment Law Representation

Pridgen Bassett Law is committed to answering your questions about your ERISA or employment disputes. While located in the metro Atlanta area, our practice spans nationwide.

We'll gladly discuss your case with you at your convenience. Contact us today to schedule an appointment.