Kimberly Stoddard v. First UNUM Life Ins Company , 706 F. App'x 138 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2065
KIMBERLY H. STODDARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00965-CCE-JEP)
Argued: December 5, 2017 Decided: December 19, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Edward G. Connette, ESSEX & RICHARDS, P.A., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. James Aaron Dean, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Caitlin H. Walton, ESSEX
RICHARDS, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ryan H. Niland, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, Patrick G. Spaugh, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE &
RICE, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After paying plaintiff Kimberly H. Stoddard long-term disability benefits for a
decade, defendant First Unum Life Insurance Company terminated those benefits as of
December 1, 2014. In these proceedings, Stoddard asserts that — although her benefits
plan accords First Unum discretion in rendering eligibility determinations — First Unum
acted unreasonably and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the
district court disagreed with Stoddard and awarded judgment to First Unum. See
Stoddard v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., No. 1:15-cv-00965 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2016), ECF
No. 36. Stoddard timely noted this appeal, and we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the district court’s award of summary judgment to First Unum
on Stoddard’s ERISA claim, applying the same standard employed by the district court in
its assessment of First Unum’s benefits decision. See Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 773 F.3d 15, 20 (4th Cir. 2014). That is, because of the discretion conferred upon
First Unum by the plan, we consider whether First Unum abused its discretion in
terminating Stoddard’s long-term disability benefits. See id. Under that deferential
standard, we must uphold First Unum’s decision “if it is reasonable,” even if we “would
have come to a different conclusion independently.” See United McGill Corp. v. Stinnett,
154 F.3d 168, 170-71 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the
briefs, the record, and the applicable authorities, we are satisfied that First Unum did not
2
abuse its discretion in rendering its benefits decision against Stoddard. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment entered by the district court in favor of First Unum.
AFFIRMED
3