Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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:
Decided:
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Rhonda
Henderson
appeals
the
district
courts
order
in
her
Retirement
Income
1001
seq.,
et
civil
Security
suit
Act
challenging
disability benefits.
brought
of
1974
Hartfords
under
the
(ERISA),
denial
Employee
29
of
U.S.C.
long-term
We affirm.
we
applying
court.
Cir.
review
the
the
same
district
legal
courts
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
benefits
construe
its
plan
gives
its
and
make
provisions
Fortier v.
Principal Life Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 2012).
As
[A]n
substantial
Disability
evidence.
Plan,
514
F.3d
Evans
315,
2
322
v.
Eaton
(4th
Corp.
Cir.
Long
2008)
Term
(quoting
Bernstein
1995)).
v.
CapitalCare,
Inc.,
70
F.3d
783,
788
(4th
Cir.
factors set
forth
in
Booth
v.
WalMart
Stores,
Inc.
Assocs.
Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d 335, 34243 (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
Hendersons
Accordingly,
we
claim
affirm
for
the
long-term
district
courts judgment.
AFFIRMED