Leagon v. Eaton Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1969
STEVE LEAGON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EATON CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
KEMPER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, d/b/a
Eaton Appeals Coordinator,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-898-20)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 9, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles J. Hodge, HODGE LAW FIRM, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Jeffrey D. Zimon, BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN &
ARONOFF, LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In this suit arising under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, Steve Leagon appeals from the district court’s order
affirming Defendants’ decision to deny Leagon long-term disability
benefits. We have reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Leagon v. Eaton Corp., No. CA-02-898-20
(D.S.C. filed July 18, 2003 & entered July 21, 2003).
In addition, we note that Leagon relies on statements in
his affidavit attacking the Labor Market Survey submitted by Eaton.
However, the affidavit was not presented to Eaton, and we can only
consider evidence that was before the Plan Administrator when the
claim was denied. See Elliot v. Sarah Lee Corp., 190 F.3d 601,
608-09 (4th Cir. 1999); Krizek v. Cigna Group Ins., 345 F.3d 91, 97
(2d Cir. 2003) (new evidence may be considered in district court
only where “good cause” is shown). Further, Leagon contends that
Dr. DuPuy’s report was given too much weight, considering it relied
on a functional assessment which was never completed. However, the
record reflects that DuPuy properly relied on another physician’s
estimated assessment, as well as a physical exam.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -