Lisa Gerhardt v. Liberty Life Assurance Company
736 F.3d 777
8th Cir.2013Background
- Gerhardt filed an ERISA long-term disability claim under Liberty’s Group Disability Income Policy in 2000.
- Policy defines disability differently for the first 24 months and after 24 months (own occupation then any occupation).
- Liberty approved benefits under the first, then reevaluated under the any-occupation standard in 2002 and continued periodic reviews.
- IME and TSA assessments (2002–2006) largely indicated Gerhardt could perform full-time sedentary work; medical opinions conflicted.
- In 2006 Liberty terminated benefits; district court remanded for further consideration; on remand Liberty again terminated benefits, and Gerhardt sought judicial review under ERISA.
- Court reviews Liberty’s termination for abuse of discretion due to Liberty’s discretionary authority under the Policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liberty abused discretion by terminating benefits. | Gerhardt contends evidence supports disability. | Liberty weighed evidence and found she could perform sedentary work. | No abuse of discretion; termination supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did expiration of nursing license/absence of bachelor’s degree undermine fit for any occupation? | Six TSA occupations require RN license or degree; she lacked both. | Liberty reasonably found at least one occupation (dispatcher) within fit. | Liberty did not abuse discretion; at least one occupation reasonably fit. |
| Did Liberty ignore Dr. Safman’s original IME report? | Original IME suggested variability; Liberty allegedly ignored it. | Liberty reviewed both original and final IME and weighed evidence. | No abuse; original report considered and not conclusive. |
| Was age properly considered in evaluating employability? | Age was not adequately considered. | Age was considered in multiple reports. | Age considered; no abandonment of duty to evaluate fit. |
| Was there substantial evidence supporting termination after remand? | Record contained evidence of disability. | Substantial evidence supported termination. | Yes; termination upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norris v. Citibank, N.A. Disability Plan (501), 308 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for ERISA benefits review)
- Ortlieb v. United HealthCare Choice Plans, 387 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard in abuse-of-discretion review)
- Sahulka v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 206 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2000) (abuses when relevant evidence is ignored)
- Willcox v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 552 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of administrator’s decision under ERISA)
- Fletcher-Merrit v. NorAm Energy Corp., 250 F.3d 1174 (8th Cir. 2001) (weighting of medical and vocational evidence in benefits decisions)