Rhonda Henderson v. Hartford Life

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:14-cv-04052-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999799106].. [15-1344]

Appeal: 15-1344

Doc: 38

Filed: 04/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1344

Doc: 38

Filed: 04/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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

Appeal: 15-1344

Doc: 38

Bernstein
1995)).

v.

Filed: 04/20/2016

CapitalCare,

Pg: 3 of 3

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