*1 sоry guidelines, defense counsel now has present opportunity argue range
wider of factors that should be fac- weight into the calculation and the
tored example,
be accorded each factor. For
judge might long take into account his
history community service. Because we Long’s
cannot be certain that sentence be the advisory guide-
would same under
lines, we will follow the Paladino proce-
dure here.
Ill
We Affirm the district court’s denial of
Long’s suppress motion to judge’s
calculations under the Sentencing Guide-
lines. We order a limited RemaND
respect to his retaining ju- sentence while
risdiction in procedure accordance with the
outlined in Paladino. HUNT, Appellant,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; International Business Corporation, Appellees. States Court of Feb.
Filed: Oct. *2 the during means
[TJotally disabled the complete you months after first 12 the perform you cannot period, waiting regular your of duties important or aof sickness IBM because tion with of expiration injury. After totally disabled period, month injury, you or that, of a sickness because of duties important the cannot gainful any other or of occupation your reasonably are you for which occuрation education, experi- or training fit your MO, Chesterfield, Bauman, A. Reandall appropri- the under You must be ence. appellant. for aon of a and doctor ate care treatment Louis, MO, ap- for Buckley, St. Ann E. expense, your At оwn continuing basis. pellee. satisfactory to Metro- disability, proof of Metropoli- must be submitted politan, COLLOTON, RILEY, and Before tan. Judges. gives Met- the Because
PER CURIAM.
eligibility, we
to determine
Life discretion
for
decision
review the
buyer for Inter-
as a
Hunt worked
Tire &
Firestone
of discretion. See
abuse
Corporation
Business
national
Bruch,
Rubber Co.
March
(IBM)
January 1993 until
from
(1989); King
948,103
L.Ed.2d
leave
approved
on
she went
when
Co., 414
& Accident Ins.
concentration,
problems
Hartford
(en banc).
994, 998-99
F.3d
her rest-
arising from
and
fatigue,
review,
we
standard
Under this
(RLS).1 After she was
less-legs syndrome
a “rea-
adopted
the administrator
whether
(LTD)
benefits
long-term
denied
terms
uncertain
interpretation”
sonable
administrator, Metropolitan
by IBM’s
the administra-
plan,
in the
and whether
(MetLife), Hunt
Company
Life Insurance
by substantial
supported
tor’s decision
Re-
Employment
suit under
brought
a
evidence, i.e.,
relevant evidence
“such
(ERISA).
Income
Act
tirement
mind
might
summary judg-
court2 granted
district
King,
a conclusion.”
defendants,
appeals.
and Hunt
to the
ment
omitted).
(internаl quotations
at 999
(Plan)
gives
IBM’s
carefully reviewed
Having
authority
processing
discretionary
did not
record,
that MetLife
conclude
LTD
we
claims,
provides
LTD
discretion
abuse its
defined as
participants,
“totally disabled”
mindful of
Although we are
benefits.
follows:
Health,
Care,
Primary
Institutes
National
of-
neurologic
disorder
movement
1. RLS is
(March
complaint. Pa-
Pub. No.
ten associatеd with
urges to
may suffer
irresistible
tients
almost
disagreeable
"usually
legs,
due to
Webber,
move their
E. Richard
2. The Honorable
inactivity
during
wоrse
that are
sensations
Judge
District
for the Eastern
States District
sleep.” See Restless
interfere with
and often
of Missouri.
Management in
And
Legs Syndrome: Detection
self-reported complaints
Hunt’s
of extreme
impaired on the basis of evidencе in our
tiredness,
confusion,
fatigue, mental
(Id.).
loss of
file.”
attacks,
memory, anxiety
and depression,
In view of the conflicting oрinions of
treating
of Hunt’s
physi
fered
treating
physician and the
*3
cian that
totally
RLS has rendered her
reviewing physicians, MetLife’s decision to
disabled, MetLife was
enti
nevertheless
deny Hunt’s claim based on the opinions of
rely
to
opinions
tled
of two rеview
Dr.
and Dr. Rodgers was not an
Jares
ing physicians
gave contrary
who
opinions.
abuse of discretion. We have held that аn
“treating
The
physician rule”—that opin
may deny
benefits based on
ions of treating physicians must be accord
objective
a lack of
of disability.
evidence
special weight
ed
not apply to dis
—does
McGee v. Reliance Standard
аbility benefit determinations under plans
(8th
921,
Cir.2004).
360 F.3d
924-25
In
by
governed
ERISA.
Black & Decker
case,
this
Dr. Jares suggested that Hunt
Nord,
Disability
822, 825,
Plan v.
undergo neuropsychological testing as a
1965,
(2003).
ments suggestive leg syndrome оf restless I respectfully dissent. I believe Hunt periodic but no limb movement.” (App. at. sufficient submitted evidence to establish 188-89). 2002, In May MetLife submitted totally she is disabled and thus enti- Hunt’s records to Dr. Rodgers, J.W. who tled to benefits under Plan. is board-certified in internal and pulmo- RLS; dоes not dispute Hunt has nary medicine. Rodgers Dr. concluded treating physician neurologist spe- who there was “little patient doubt that this has —a cializes in opined that leg syndrome.” restless (App. at disorders — Hunt is incapable disabled and He noted that sleep study had been work; conducted, Hunt an 2002 but below neuropsychological that the sleep study indicating testing drasticаlly RLS im- recommended Dr. Jares (Id.).. pairs ability to sleep; March “still remains to and the be done.” her Social (SSA) Rodgers Dr. conсluded that Administration “[w]hat is in awarded Citibank, is the question effect of benefits. See syn- restless Norris v. patient’s (501), drome on this N.A. Disability neuropsychological 308 F.3d (8th Cir.2002) profile cognitive capabilities.” (affirming rec- He reversal of ommended that objective “until wе have of benefits termination where there was impairment little, evidence of in this if any, functional record evidence from which realm, we cannot the patient to be person could find claimant not Am. disabled); Gen. Riedl Life Cir.2001) (al- America, STATES UNITED n. Appellant, binding, is not determination
though SSA ERISA evidence it is admissible v. UNUM benefits); Lain cf. O’MALLEY, Appellee. Am., Phillip Ins. Co. of administrator abused (рlan lawyer its discretion concentrate she could maintained Court States chest severe long periods *4 Further, assuming еven pains). 13, of the objective evidence failed submit RLS, plan severity of her Oct. Filed: solely deny benefits based not may See evidence. objective medical absence Revere Paul
House Cir.2001) (con- 1045, 1048 dis- administrator abused its
cluding plan solely on based denying benefits
cretion objective evidence any unable to
claimant was administrator; ad- by plan
tions identified “not even scintilla possessed
ministrator treating physician’s refuting
of evidence” claimant, cor- had severe
opinion that disabled, disease, was
onary artery dis- could be if such
and even sup- nothing subjective,
missed objec- demand administrator’s
ported evidence). true especially This is
tive here, subjective
where, the claimant’s by or in- not contradicted
complaints are record evidence. other
consistent with v. Metro. Coker ben- (affirming denial of was claimant’s
efits where objective medi-
unsupported deci-
cal evidence contrary evi- overwhelmed
sion
dence). Thus, grant I would reverse judgment. summary