Paramount Shaw v. United Mutual of Omaha Life Insurance Company ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1818 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1818
PARAMOUNT SHAW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED MUTUAL OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (6:19-cv-03537-JD)
Submitted: August 5, 2022 Decided: August 16, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: La’Keabian Henderson, THE SHAW LEGAL GROUP LLC, Simpsonville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew D. Patterson, NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1818 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Paramount Shaw appeals from the district court’s order granting United Mutual of
Omaha Life Insurance Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in Shaw’s suit
pursuant to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
§ 1001. United determined that it could not properly review Shaw’s claim without further
documentation, which Shaw failed to provide. The district court found that United’s ruling
was reasonable. We affirm.
Where, as here, an ERISA plan grants an administrator discretion to award a benefit,
judicial review of the administrator’s decision is for abuse of discretion. See Fortier v.
Principal Life Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 2012). “Judicial review of an ERISA
administrator’s decision for abuse of discretion requires us primarily to determine whether
the decision was reasonable, a determination that is informed by” the nonexhaustive list of
factors the Court set forth in Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Assocs. Health & Welfare
Plan, 201 F.3d 335, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2000). See Griffin v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 898 F.3d 371, 381 (4th Cir. 2018). In addition to considerations concerning the
language of the plan, the materials consulted in reaching the decision, and the consistency
of the interpretation of the plan, these factors include “whether the decision was consistent
with the procedural and substantive requirements of ERISA.” Fortier, 666 F.3d at 235.
Ultimately, though, “to be held reasonable, the administrator’s decision must result from a
deliberate, principled reasoning process and be supported by substantial evidence,” Griffin,
898 F.3d at 381 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); that is, evidence “[that] a
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1818 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” Pearson v. Colvin, 810
F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
United denied Shaw’s claim for benefits due to Shaw’s failure to provide requested
medical documentation. The policy explicitly stated that the failure to provide
“information needed to prove loss” could invalidate or reduce a claim and that “supporting
information” may be “required.” The policy’s requirement that the claimant prove his
disability is appropriate. See Davidson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 1093, 1096 (8th
Cir. 1992).
On appeal, Shaw does not offer any excuse for his failure to provide the requested
materials. He does not state that he objected to the requests on any basis, sought a waiver,
or otherwise discussed with United the necessity of the documents it was requesting.
Instead, he asserts that United was requesting irrelevant information and had sufficient
evidence to conclude that he was entitled to benefits. Plan administrators may not impose
unreasonable requests for medical evidence. Miles v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 720 F.3d 472,
488 (2d Cir. 2013).
However, here, the scope of United’s request is irrelevant given that Shaw and his
attorney did not object to the requests and did not assert any basis for his failure to respond.
See Allison v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 381 F.3d 1015, 1024 (10th Cir. 2004). Had Shaw made
a clear objection, United could have examined whether the records were necessary and
documented its ruling on the issue. However, given that Shaw simply ignored repeated
requests initially and on appeal, we find that United’s determination that it had insufficient
records to determine disability was reasonable.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1818 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
Finally, Shaw argues that United labored under a conflict because it both evaluated
and paid the benefits at issue. United's dual role as plan administrator, authorized to
determine the amount of benefits owed, and insurer, responsible for paying such benefits,
creates a structural conflict of interest. See Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105,
114-15 (2008). While not altering the standard of review itself, the existence of a conflict
of interest is a factor to be considered in determining whether a plan administrator has
abused its discretion. Id. at 115. However, this factor is only significant if the plaintiff
points to “evidence of how the conflict of interest affected the interpretation made by the
administrator.” Fortier v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 231, 236 n.1 (4th Cir. 2012).
Here, Shaw has not cited to any evidence showing a history of biased decisions or that a
conflict influenced United’s determination. Shaw contends only that United made
excessive requests for supporting evidence in order to make it difficult for Shaw to comply.
However, given that United followed up numerous times and reduced the documents
required on appeal, that Shaw never objected or informed United that the requests were
burdensome or over-reaching, and that Shaw never reinstated a medical release permitting
United itself to obtain the documents it required, there is simply no evidence that United’s
conflict affected its interpretation of the plan.
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4