Taylor Hunt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance C, et al

Filing

OPINION filed : the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED upon the reasoning set forth in the opinion and order filed on April 29, 2013, decision not for publication. Martha Craig Daughtrey (AUTHORING), Jeffrey S. Sutton, and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-1724

Document: 44-2

Filed: 10/10/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0779n.06
No. 13-1724

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TAYLOR HUNT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and HAVI GROUP LP
HEALTHCARE AND SURVIVOR
DISABILITY PLAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Oct 10, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Defendants-Appellees.

BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, SUTTON, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. In this Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) case, plaintiff Taylor Hunt appeals a district court decision upholding an
ERISA plan administrator’s denial of her claim for long-term disability benefits. Because the
district court correctly applied this circuit’s precedent and cogently explained its reasoning for
entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
and HAVI Group LP Healthcare and Survival Disability Plan (collectively, MetLife), we affirm.
Beginning in early 2009, Hunt’s health began to deteriorate. Her symptoms included
debilitating pain and fatigue. By the end of that year, these symptoms forced her to leave her
position as director of digital promotions at HAVI Group, a large shipping and logistics

Case: 13-1724

Document: 44-2

Filed: 10/10/2014

Page: 2

No. 13-1724
Hunt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
company.

She would eventually be diagnosed with fibromyalgia, adrenal fatigue, gait

disturbance, lumbar spondylosis, dysomnia, and depression.
In June of 2010, Hunt filed for long-term disability benefits under her employer’s
ERISA-controlled insurance plan. The plan’s administrator, MetLife, denied the claim because
it did not consider Hunt’s supporting documentation to be adequate. Hunt refiled the claim.
This time, she included notes and diagnostic reports from her treating physicians that described
Hunt’s symptoms and expressed the physicians’ professional opinion that Hunt was unable to
return to work. MetLife reviewed Hunt’s new information, but did not conduct a physical
examination, and again denied the claim, explaining that Hunt’s documents failed to include any
“objective findings to support [your] subjective complaints at this point in time or to impair you
to the point where you would have any restrictions/limitations that would preclude you from
being able to work fulltime.” MetLife informed Hunt of her right to appeal and advised her to
submit “medical records to include office visit notes, diagnostic-testing, lab reports, treatment
plans and current restrictions and limitations that are causing a functional impairment that would
prevent you from returning to work.”
Hunt appealed the decision. She supplied further records from her treating physicians
that set out her symptoms and physical limitations, and she provided MetLife with medical
literature explaining that fibromyalgia is of “unknown etiology” and therefore cannot be
objectively detected or diagnosed.

MetLife conducted a second paper review of Hunt’s

submissions. The document reviewer found that “the records available for review did not
document objective findings that support Ms. Hunt’s inability to work,” and MetLife affirmed its
denial of benefits. Hunt filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan shortly thereafter.
-2-

Case: 13-1724

Document: 44-2

Filed: 10/10/2014

Page: 3

No. 13-1724
Hunt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Hunt’s primary argument, both in the district court and on appeal, is that it was arbitrary
and capricious to require her to provide objective evidence of her disability. She offers three
reasons: first, the terms of the insurance plan itself do not contain an objective evidence
requirement; second, it is unreasonable to require “objective evidence” of diseases like
fibromyalgia, which are susceptible only to clinical, not objective, diagnosis; and third, she
lacked notice of the need to present objective evidence because MetLife’s rejection letters did
not clearly communicate this requirement.

Hunt further contends that the physicians who

reviewed her documents labored under a conflict of interest because they were on MetLife’s
payroll and that MetLife improperly credited the results of its paper review over the opinions of
her treating physicians.
Hunt does not dispute that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies, and
she apparently concedes that she did not provide MetLife with anything that could be considered
“objective evidence” of her disease or the functional limitations resulting from it.
In granting summary judgment to MetLife, the district court held, first, that MetLife did
not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it demanded objective evidence supporting Hunt’s claim.
In this circuit, “[r]equiring a claimant to provide objective medical evidence of disability is not
irrational or unreasonable,” even when such a requirement does not appear among the plan
terms. Cooper v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 486 F.3d 157, 166 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Second, and without disputing Hunt’s claim that fibromyalgia resists objective diagnosis, the
district court also found it reasonable for MetLife to require objective evidence of functional
limitations resulting from Hunt’s fibromyalgia—limitations that could, for example, have been
chronicled by a functional capacity evaluation.

-3-

Case: 13-1724

Document: 44-2

Filed: 10/10/2014

Page: 4

No. 13-1724
Hunt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
The district court also found no error in MetLife’s use of paid medical document
reviewers.

Although recognizing the potential for structural conflict created by such an

arrangement, see Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 112 (2008), the district court
correctly applied “Sixth Circuit caselaw [that] requires a plaintiff not only to show the purported
existence of a conflict of interest, but also to provide ‘significant evidence’ that the conflict
actually affected or motivated the decision at issue.” Cooper, 486 F.3d at 165 (quoting Peruzzi
v. Summa Med. Plan, 137 F.3d 431, 433 (6th Cir.1998)). Hunt provided no evidence that the
conflict influenced the paper reviewers’ decision in her case.
Likewise, the district court found no error in MetLife’s decision to credit its own nontreating physician reviewers over Hunt’s treating doctors—a proper application of our circuit’s
rule that “[u]nder ERISA, plan administrators are not required to accord special deference to the
opinions of treating physicians.” Balmert v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 601 F.3d 497, 504
(6th Cir. 2010) (citing Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 831 (2003)).
“Reliance on other physicians is reasonable so long as the administrator does not totally ignore
the treating physician’s opinions,” id. (citing Black & Decker, 538 U.S. at 834), and Hunt does
not argue that MetLife did so in this case.
Finally, Hunt contends on appeal that MetLife failed to comply with ERISA’s notice
requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 1133 because the rejection letters did not clearly communicate
MetLife’s insistence on objective evidence. The district court did not have occasion to address
this argument because Hunt raised it for the first time on appeal. As a result she has “forfeit[ed]
the right to have the argument addressed on appeal.” Armstrong v. City of Melvindale, 432 F.3d
695, 700 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

-4-

Case: 13-1724

Document: 44-2

Filed: 10/10/2014

Page: 5

No. 13-1724
Hunt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
In short, the reasons supporting this decision have been ably articulated by the district
court. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would, therefore, be duplicative and
serve no useful precedential purpose. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court
upon the reasoning set forth in the opinion and order filed on April 29, 2013.

-5-