Mathis v. CSX Corporation Short Term Disability Plan et al

Filing 24

ORDER overruling 22 Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation; adopting 21 Report and Recommendation, as supplemented by the Court's Order, as the opinion of the Court; granting 13 Motion for summary judgment. The Clerk shall enter judgment for CSX Corporation Short Term Disability Plan and against Kathleen Mathis, and then close the file. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 3/15/2018. (JJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
KATHLEEN MATHIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:16-cv-1386-J-32PDB

CSX CORPORATION SHORT
TERM DISABILITY PLAN,
Defendant.

ORDER
This ERISA case is before the Court on Defendant CSX Corporation Short
Term Disability Plan’s (the “Plan”) Motion for Final Judgment or, Alternatively,
Summary Judgment (Doc. 13). On January 25, 2018, the assigned United States
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (Doc. 21),
recommending that the decision denying benefits be affirmed. Plaintiff
Kathleen Mathis objected to the R&R, (Doc. 22), on three grounds: (1) the
conclusion that Mathis had no psychiatric functional limitations on her ability
to perform her occupation as a software engineer for the time period of
September 29, 2015 through November 4, 2015 is contrary to the overwhelming
evidence of record; (2) the conclusion that certain opinions of Dr. Becker do not
support a finding that Mathis was disabled is contrary to the evidence; and (3)

that MetLife’s reliance on Dr. Becker’s opinions was not reasonable or
supported by the evidence. The Plan responded, arguing that the Court should
ignore Mathis’s objections because she did not object to the finding that she was
not disabled as a result of her failure to comply with prescribed treatment, and
providing reasons why Mathis’s objections are incorrect or meritless. (Doc. 23).
On this record, MetLife could have awarded benefits for the disputed
period. However, Mathis has not demonstrated that MetLife’s denial of benefits
was arbitrary and capricious. 1 As long as MetLife’s denial had a reasonable
basis, then “it must be upheld as not being arbitrary or capricious, even if there
is evidence that would support a contrary decision.” White v. Coca-Cola Co., 542
F.3d 848, 856 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted) (quoting Jett v. Blue Cross
& Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 890 F.2d 1137, 1140 (11th Cir. 1989)). “Even where
[Mathis’s] own doctors offered different medical opinions than MetLife’s
independent doctors, the plan administrator may give different weight to those
opinions without acting arbitrarily and capriciously.” See Blankenship v. Metro.
Life Ins. Co., 644 F.3d 1350, 1356 (11th Cir. 2011). Though this is a close case,
the Court cannot find that MetLife acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

The Magistrate Judge decided to “forgo de novo review . . . and proceed
to the easier issue of whether MetLife’s decision is arbitrary and capricious
. . . .” (Doc. 21 at 20).
1

2

Upon de novo review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 21), it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22)

are OVERRULED.
2.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 21),

as supplemented by the Court’s Order, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the
Court.
3.

Defendant’s Motion for Final Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary

Judgment (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.
4.

The Clerk shall enter judgment for CSX Corporation Short Term

Disability Plan and against Kathleen Mathis, and then close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 15th day of March,
2018.

jb
Copies to:
Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of record
3