Richards v . AT&T Mobility CV-10-92-PB 2/16/11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Deanna Richards
v. Case N o . 10-cv-92-PB
Opinion N o . 2011 DNH 027
AT&T Mobility Disability
Benefits Program
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Deanna Richards, a former participant in the AT&T Mobility
Disability Benefits Program, brings an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (“ERISA”) action against the Program seeking
to recover long-term disability benefits allegedly owed her.
Both Richards and the Program have moved for judgment on the
administrative record. For the reasons set forth below, I grant
the Program’s motion and deny Richards’ motion.
I . BACKGROUND1
A. The Program
The AT&T Mobility Disability Benefits Program (“Program”)
is a component program under AT&T Benefit Plan N o . 1 . The Plan
1
The background facts are drawn primarily from the parties’
Joint Statement of Material Facts (Doc. N o . 1 0 ) .
Sponsor and Plan Administrator, as defined by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §
1001 et seq, is AT&T Inc. The Claims Administrator is AT&T
Integrated Disability Service Center, a division of Sedgwick
Claims Management Services, Inc. In its role as Plan Sponsor,
AT&T delegated to the Claims Administrator the fiduciary
responsibility for the administration of all claims under the
Program. See Summary Plan Description: AT&T Mobility Disability
Benefits Program (“SPD”) at 29 (Doc. N o . 1 - 1 ) . Under the
Program, the Claims Administrator has the power to “determine
whether [an employee is] Disabled under the terms of the Program
for STD, LTD or Supplemental LTD benefits.”
Id. at 2 2 .
The Program offers both Short Term Disability (“STD”) and
Long Term Disability (“LTD”) benefits to eligible AT&T Mobility
employees. Under the Program, an eligible employee is entitled
to up to twenty-six weeks of STD benefits i f , as a result of a
disability, the employee is unable to perform the duties of his
or her “Customary Job.” See id. at 8 . “Customary Job” is
defined as “the work activity that [the employee was] hired to
regularly perform for the Employer and that serves as [the
employee’s] source of income from the Employer.”
Id. at 2 9 .
Upon the expiration of STD benefits, an employee is
eligible for LTD benefits as long as the employee remains
2
“Disabled” under the terms of the Program. See id. at 8 . An
employee is considered “Disabled” for the purposes of LTD
benefits if “[d]uring the first twenty-four (24) months after
[the] exhaustion of STD Benefits, [the employee is] continuously
unable to perform [the employee’s] Customary Job.”
Id. at 1 1 .
B. Medical Evidence
On April 9, 2008, Richards, an employee of AT&T Mobility
Services LLC, suffered a back injury while attempting to lift a
rolling cabinet door. Richards was initially treated for her
injury on April 1 4 , 2008 by her primary care provider, Certified
Physician’s Assistant (“PA-C”) Judith Santangelo. During the
appointment Richards indicated that “[s]he was unable to work
longer than 2 hours today because of her pain.” Admin. R.
D00473. A week later, in a follow-up appointment with PA-C
Santangelo, Richards explained that “[o]ver the past week the
pain has persisted making it hard . . . to walk[,] sit or stand
for any length of time” and that she was “not able to return to
work” since her position required her “to stand all day with
frequent bending.” Id. at D00476.
On April 3 0 , 2008, Richards returned for another follow-up
with PA-C Santangelo. During this visit, Richards noted a
“[s]light improvement with the pain in [her] lower back and [ ]
3
left leg,” although Richards complained that she was still
“having back spasms and can only stand for a few minutes.” Id.
at D00483.
On May 2 7 , 2008, an MRI of Richards’ lumbar spine was
performed at Portsmouth Regional Hospital. A report of the MRI
noted as follows:
A very mild diffuse disc bulge is present at the L2-3
level without evidence for neural foraminal2 narrowing.
Moderate disc space height loss is present at the L3-4
level with a small central disc herniation. Mild
bilateral neural foraminal narrowing is present at
this level. Moderate to severe disc space height loss
is present at the L4-5 level with a very mild diffuse
disc bulge and mild bilateral neural foraminal
narrowing. The fat about the exiting nerve roots is
intact. Moderate disc space height loss is present at
the L5-S1 level with a left posterolateral3 disc
herniation measuring 13 x 6 mm in size, which impinges
upon the exiting nerve root at this level and also
upon the lower exiting nerve root. This results in a
mild spinal stenosis 4 .
Id. at D00244.
On June 2 5 , 2008, Richards was examined by neurosurgeon D r .
Clinton Miller. In his report, D r . Miller noted that Richards
2
“Foramen” or “foramina” is “an aperture or perforation through
a bone or membranous structure.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
698 (27th ed. 2000).
3
“Posterolateral” means “behind and to one side.” Id. at 1431.
4
“Stenosis” refers to a “stricture of any canal or orifice.”
Id. at 1695.
4
was a “pleasant, friendly, cooperative woman” who “appears in no
acute distress and who gets about the office and examining room
with ease.” Id. at D00280. D r . Miller went on to state that
the
[G]eneral physical examination is notable only for
weight issues. Examination of the back shows a normal
spinal curvature with somewhat hyperlordotic5 lumbar
curve. Her gait is slightly cautious but not antalgic6
and she was able to walk on her tiptoes and on her
heels without difficulty. Tandem gait is normal.
Detailed manual motor testing shows universal normal
tone, strength and coordination throughout both lower
extremities.
Id. at D00280.
In D r . Miller’s opinion, Richards suffered from “[l]ow[er]
back pain with intermittent right or left lumbar radiculopathy7
due to multilevel lumbar degenerative disk disease and
spondylotic8 lateral recess stenosis.” Id. D r . Miller also
noted that he did “not see any reason to actively consider[] a
5
“Lordosis” refers to “an anteriorly convex curvature of the
vertical column . . .” Id. at 1032.
6
“Antalgic” or “analgesic” is characterized as “reduced response
to painful stimuli.” Id. at 6 7 , 9 4 .
7
“Radiculopathy” is a “[d]isorder of the spinal nerve roots.”
Id. at 1503.
8
“Spondylosis” is the “ankylosis” or “stiffening or fixation” of
“the vertebrae; often applied nonspecifically to any lesion of
the spine of a degenerative nature.” Id. at 9 0 , 1678.
5
neurosurgical treatment option at this time given her functional
status” but instead emphasized that Richards should do “core
strengthening exercises faithfully . . . get plenty of aerobic
exercise through reinstitution of her walking program; use short
bursts of high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents to
manage flare up of back or radicular leg symptoms and adopt good
body mechanics proactively in all of her lifting activities.”
Id. at D00280-81.
Over the next few weeks, Richards continued to see PA-C
Santangelo. During these visits Richards relayed that she had
been “[m]aking progress with physical therapy and water therapy”
and that she could “now stand and walk for 15 min before having
worsening pain.” Id. at D00505. Richards did not feel that she
was ready to return to work, however, as she continued “to have
limitations on being able to sit bend stand for any length of
time.” Id.
On September 2 , 2008, Richards was examined by D r . Stuart
Glassman of Granite Physiatry in connection with Richards’ claim
for workers’ compensation benefits. D r . Glassman noted his
impression that
[Richards] has no disability as it relates to the
lumbar strain injury of 04/09/08. . . . [H]er physical
examination today does not show any acute, ongoing
6
lumbar strain injury. She would have no work
restrictions and would be able to work full time, full
duty. . . . No further medical treatment or
prescriptions are felt to be reasonable, medically
necessary, or causally related to the injury date of
04/09/08. Please note this claimant currently says
she is using Ibuprofen at nighttime, but only uses
Tylenol or Flexeril two to three times a week.
Clearly, this usage of medication would lend against
any acute ongoing problem at this time. It is felt
this claimant has suffered a soft tissue injury that
has resolved.
Id. at D00302.
On September 1 9 , 2008 Richards was evaluated by D r . Peter
Dirksmeier. After conducting his examination, D r . Dirksmeier
noted his belief that Richards’ “symptoms are an exacerbation of
underlying discogenic9 pain.” Id. at D00520. However, D r .
Dirksmeier was “not convinced that the disc herniation seen at
L5-S1 [on Plaintiff’s MRI] is acute or has anything to do with
her work injury or present symptoms.” Id. In his opinion
Richards was “not a candidate for any surgical intervention” and
instead suggested “a conservative approach” with continued
“formal physical therapy with a goal of transitioning ultimately
into an independent generalized conditioning and core-
strengthening program.” Id.
9
“Discogenic” denotes “a disorder originating in or from an
intervertebral disk space.” Id. at 508.
7
On October 1 0 , 2008, Richards met with D r . Barry Gendron at
Seacoast Area Physiatry. D r . Gendron felt that Richards
exhibited “[c]hronic low back pain . . . [and] [r]ight leg pain
which may represent lumbar radiculopathy.” Id. at D00528. In
Dr. Gendron’s opinion, Richards had the ability “to work 6 hours
a day, 4 to 5 days a week with frequent change in position from
standing to walking to sitting and not standing or sitting for
more than 15 minutes continuous.” Id.
On November 7 , 2008, Joel Thone, Richards’ chiropractor,
released Richards to full duty work at AT&T Mobility, with no
restrictions. Id. at D00029. After returning to work on
November 2 0 , Richards allegedly re-aggravated her injury and was
unable to return to work. In an appointment with PA-C
Santangelo on December 1 , 2008, Richards relayed that she was
[V]ery sore at the end of her shift having severe
lower back pain and numbness into her right leg. The
following morning she had to crawl to the bathroom and
take a hot shower in hopes that her pain improved. On
the way to work her right leg went numb and she ended
up crashing into some cars. The lower back pain
continues and she is having difficulty with
ambulation. She has not been able to return to work
because of the pain.
Id. at D00777.
On December 1 9 , 2008, Richards was again seen by D r .
Miller. After conducting his examination, D r . Miller noted that
8
[Richards] moves slowly, cautiously in any change of
position. Each and every physical exam maneuver
generated a response of “pain”. She was able to stand
in place on her tiptoes and rock up on her heels but
declined to walk that way because it would increase
her back pain. She has limited range of motion in
flexion or extension at the waist. There is no
tenderness to palpation or percussion along the spinal
axis nor any paravertebral muscle spasm, scoliosis or
pelvic tilt. She was tender over the sacroiliac10
joints bilaterally. Seated manual motor testing shows
universal normal tone, strength and coordination
throughout both lower extremities in all myotomes 11 .
Id. at D00278.
Dr. Miller recommended that x-rays be performed. Id.
On December 2 9 , 2008, x-rays of Richards’ lumbar spine were
performed at Portsmouth Regional Hospital. A report of those x-
rays noted as follows: “[t]here is facet hypertrophy12 at L4-5
and L5-S1. Sacral arches are intact. There are mild sclerotic
changes within the SI joints. Vertebral body heights are
intact. No instability is demonstrated on flexion/extension
views.” Id. at D00282.
10
“Sacroiliac” relates to the “sacrum” which is the “segment of
the vertebral column forming part of the pelvis.” Id. at 1587,
1588.
11
“Myotome” refers to the “muscles derived from one somite and
innervated by one segmental spinal nerve.” Id. at 1177.
12
“Facet” refers to “a small smooth area on a bone.” Id. at
638. “Hypertrophy” is the “general increase in bulk of a part
of an organ, not due to tumor formation.” Id. at 857.
9
On March 1 1 , 2009, Richards attended a physical therapy
session at Sport & Spine Physical Therapy, Inc. After the
session, Richards’ therapist noted that “Deanna has made amazing
progress, no longer complains of constant back pain, her TROM
has improved, still painful and limited in trunk flexion, still
pain with high level activities – shoveling and lifting, her
posture has improved, she still presents with hamstring
tightness.” Id. at D00344. Under the “Additional Comments”
section of the report, Richards’ physical therapist noted:
“[a]wesome progress.” Id.
On May 2 0 , 2009, Richards was seen again by PA-C
Santangelo. Richards relayed to PA-C Santangelo that she
continued to have chronic back pain and is “unable to stand more
than 10-15 minutes and cannot bend forward at the waist.” Id.
at D00340. After conducting a physical examination, PA-C
Santangelo noted that Richards “appears well, alert, oriented,
in no apparent distress” and Richards exhibited “no pain on
palpation of the upper spine. Some discomfort to palpation of
the lower spine in to the right buttock.” Id. at D00342.
On June 2 5 , 2009, at the request of the Claims
Administrator, a Physician Advisor Review was conducted by D r .
David Hinkamp. As part of his review, D r . Hinkamp spoke with
10
PA-C Santangelo about Richards’ condition. In his report, D r .
Hinkamp
[A]sked if there were objective findings from the exam
that would support [Richards’] symptoms. PA
Santangelo noted a MRI from 1/16/09 that documented
DDD without significant stenosis and some other mild
findings. I asked if there were physical findings and
PA Santangelo noted that the EE was limited by pain
and this was her main finding.
Id. at D00714-15.
On August 1 1 , 2009, Richards was seen for a follow up visit
with Seacoast Area Physiatry. A physical examination revealed
that Richards “is in no acute distress. She is pleasant and
cooperative. Her pain diagram is now specific to her back,
across the lumbar spine and over the sacrum with description of
numbness occasional down her right thigh and into her foot.”
Id. at D00433. It was further noted that Richards had:
[A] part-time, light duty work capacity 6 hours a day
4-5 days a week. She can lift 10 pounds maximum, 5
pounds frequent, bend occasionally, kneel
occasionally, she should not squat, she may
occasionally climb stairs, may frequently sit, stand
or walk but should not do any 1 of these for an
extended period of time. She may reach near and drive
occasionally and has no limitation in fine motor.
Id. at D00434.
On November 5 , 2009, D r . Howard Rosen, board certified in
pain management, submitted an independent review of Richards’
11
medical records. Based on his review, D r . Rosen concluded that
“[t]he findings do not support an inability for Deanna Richards
to perform her duties of her job of retail sales consultant from
08/01/09 to the present.” Id. at D00545.
On November 1 3 , 2009, D r . Allan Brecher, board certified in
orthopedic surgery, submitted an independent review of Richards’
medical records. Based on his review, D r . Brecher concluded
that “[f]rom an orthopedic perspective, she is not disabled from
her regular job as of 08/01/09 through present.” Id. at D00554.
C. Richards’ Receipt of Disability Benefits
Following her injury, Richards applied for STD benefits
effective April 1 9 , 2008, based on her inability to perform her
duties as a Retail Sales Consultant13 (“RSC”). Richards was
13
The duties of a “Retail Sales Consultant” (the position that
Richards held at AT&T) are as follows:
Assist[s] new and existing customer[s] with the
purchase of wireless equipment and service.
Provides customer assistance with local market
promotions. Works exclusively in a company
owned retail store or kiosk.
The Administrative Claim File also included a supplemental
job description from Richards’ supervisor, Jeff Smith.
Smith described Richards’ position as follows:
[The job duties include] standing and walking, typing
in orders. Only time she can normally sit is on break
and lunch in the back room. She also bends to lift a
12
awarded STD benefits and continued to receive STD benefits for
twenty-six weeks, at which time Richards began to receive LTD
benefits. Richards received LTD benefits from October 1 8 , 2007
through November 1 9 , 2008. As noted above, pursuant to a
doctor’s release, Richards returned to work for one day on
November 2 0 , 2008. Richards was unable to continue working and
she resumed her receipt of LTD benefits on November 2 1 , 2008.
Richards continued receiving LTD benefits until August 1 , 2009
when she was informed by the Claims Administrator that her
benefits had ceased because “clinical information does not
document a severity of your condition(s) that supports your
inability to perform your occupation.” Id. at D00412. The
Claims Administrator identified the basis for its decision as
the “documentation provided by Physician’s Assistant Judith
Santangelo, D r . Clinton Miller, D r . Glassman and [Plaintiff’s]
Physical Therapist, Emily.” Id. at D00410.
Through counsel, Richards appealed the denial of her LTD
benefits. The denial of Richards’ LTD benefits was upheld on
roll top cabinet door several times an hour if Sales
are good. The door may weigh up to 15 lbs . . . with
resistance. She does not carry more than 5 pounds
though.
Admin. R. D00721.
13
November 1 6 , 2009. Although Richards had updated her claim file
with additional medical records, the letter upholding the denial
of her benefits noted that “none [of the referenced findings]
are documented to be so severe as to prevent you from performing
the duties of your job as Retail Sales Consultant, with or
without reasonable accommodation from August 1 , 2009 through the
present.” Id. at D00557. The Appeals Specialist noted that the
basis of its decision was “medical information from Barry
Gendron, MD; Stuart Glassman, MD; Sport & Spine Physical
Therapy, Inc.; and Seacoast Area Physiatry dated April 1 4 , 2008
through October 1 6 , 2009” as well as recommendations made
pursuant to the independent file reviews performed by D r . Howard
Rosen and D r . Allan Brecher. Id. at D00557.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review in an ERISA case differs from that
in an ordinary civil case, where summary judgment is designed to
screen out cases that raise no trialworthy issues. See, e.g.,
Orndorf v . Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 404 F.3d 5 1 0 , 517 (1 st Cir.
2005). In the ERISA context “summary judgment is simply a
vehicle for deciding the issue[s].” Cusson v . Liberty Life
Assurance C o . of Boston,
592 F.3d 215, 224 (1 st Cir. 2010).
14
Where, as here, an ERISA benefits plan gives the
administrator the discretion to determine eligibility for
benefits, the administrator’s decision must be upheld unless it
is “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Wright
v . R.R. Donnelley & Sons C o . Grp. Benefits Plan, 402 F.3d 6 7 , 74
(1st Cir. 2005). An administrator's decision is not arbitrary
or capricious if it is "reasoned and supported by substantial
evidence." Gannon v . Metro. Life Ins. Co.,
360 F.3d 2 1 1 , 213
(1st Cir. 2004). Put differently, while my review is not a
“rubber stamp,” I must uphold the Claims Administrator’s
decision “if there is any reasonable basis for it.” Wallace v .
Johnson & Johnson,
585 F.3d 1 1 , 15 (1 st Cir. 2009).
III. ANALYSIS
Richards takes issue with the Claims Administrator’s
determination for two reasons. First, Richards argues that the
Claims Administrator’s decision to terminate her LTD benefits
was arbitrary and capricious because two evaluations indicate
that she “was unable to perform the essential functions of her
job” and consequently was “Disabled” under the terms of the
Program. Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Admin. R. at 8 , Doc. N o . 1 1 .
Next, Richards faults the Claims Administrator for relying “upon
15
the opinions of two independent medical reviewers – neither of
which examined or spoke with M s . Richards.” Id. at 9.
A. The Claims Administrator’s Decision
In order to qualify for LTD benefits under the AT&T
Program, an individual must be unable to perform the “work
activity that [the employee] was hired to regularly perform for
the Employer.” SPD at 1 1 , 29 (Docket N o . 1 - 1 ) . As noted in the
supplemental job description provided by Richards’ supervisor,
RSCs are often required to stand for extended periods of time.
See Admin. R. D00440. Recognizing this as an essential function
of her job, Richards cites two evaluations which indicate that
she may not have been up to the task. See Pl.’s Mot. for J. on
the Admin. R. at 9, Doc N o . 1 1 .
First Richards refers to a May 2 0 , 2009 note by PA-C
Santangelo in which Santangelo reported that Richards could not
“stand longer than 15 min without pain.”14 Id. at D00339. In
14
While the opinion of a treating physician is not entitled to
any special deference, see Morales-Alejandro v . Med. Card Sys.,
Inc.,
486 F.3d 693, 700 (1st Cir. 2007) (“a plan administrator
is not obligated to accept or even to give particular weight to
the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician”), plan
administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit reliable
evidence. See Black & Decker Disability Plan v . Nord,
538 U.S.
822, 832 (2003). Therefore, it is worth noting that the Claims
Administrator considered PA-C Santangelo’s opinion, but
determined that it was entitled to less weight because it was
16
addition, Richards highlights an August 1 1 , 2009 work release
indicating that Richards had a “part-time, light duty work
capacity 6 hours a day, 4-5 days a week” in which she could
“lift 10 pounds maximum, 5 pounds frequent[ly], bend
occasionally, kneel occasionally . . . frequently sit, stand or
walk but should not do any [one] of those for any extended
period of time.” Id. at D00434.
While these evaluations are consistent with Richards’ claim
that she was unable to fully perform her role as an RSC, the
existence of these reports is not enough to render the Claims
Administrator’s decision arbitrary and capricious. “Evidence
contrary to an administrator's decision does not make the
decision unreasonable, provided substantial evidence supports
the decision.” Wright, 402 F.3d at 7 4 . In this case, there is
sufficient evidence to reasonably support the Claims
Administrator’s conflicting conclusion that Richards was able to
return to her position as an RSC, and therefore its decision
must be upheld. Stamp v . Metro. Life Ins. Co.,
531 F.3d 8 4 , 87
(1st Cir. 2008).
based mainly on Richards’ self-reported pain symptoms as opposed
to objective physical findings. See Admin. R. D00410-12,
D00714-15.
17
Several medical opinions and reports cited by both the
Claims Administrator and Appeals Specialist reinforce the
conclusion Richards’ back ailments were not so painful and
severe as to prevent her from performing her role as an RSC. In
his June 2 5 , 2008 evaluation of Richards, D r . Miller noted that
Richards “appear[ed] in no acute distress” and she moved “about
the office and examining room with ease.” Admin. R. D00280.
Additionally, D r . Miller went on to note that the “[g]eneral
physical examination is notable only for weight issues” and
“detailed manual motor testing shows universal normal tone,
strength and coordination throughout both lower extremities.”
Id. That fall, in two separate evaluations, both D r . Glassman
and Richards’ chiropractor concluded that Richards was capable
of returning to work full time with no work restrictions.
Id.
at D00029, D00302. Later, in the spring of 2009, Richards’
physical therapist noted that Richards had “made amazing
progress” and while Richards still experienced “pain with high
level activities – shoveling and lifting” she “no longer
complain[ed] of constant back pain.”
Id. at D00344.
Additionally, PA-C Santangelo indicated that Richards
“appear[ed] well, alert, oriented, [and] in no apparent
distress” with “no pain on palpation of the upper spine” and
18
only “[s]ome discomfort to palpation of the lower spine in to
the right buttock.” Id. at D00342. Finally, relying in part on
these evaluations and other evidence in the record, three
independent medical reviews each concluded that Richards was
capable of returning to her position.
Id. at D00544-46; D00552-
5 5 ; D00712-15.
Based on the evidence available to the Claims
Administrator, I cannot say that no reasonable basis existed to
support its decision. See Medina v . Metro. Life Ins. Co., 588
F.3d 4 1 , 45 (1st Cir. 2009). The records and reports cited by
the Claims Administrator, as well as the three independent
medical reviews of the record, all support the conclusion that
Richards was able to return to her position as a RSC. As a
result, the Claims Administrator’s decision to discontinue
Richards’ LTD benefits was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse
of discretion and must be upheld. See
id.
B. Reliance on Independent Medical Examiner’s Opinions
Richards also faults the Claims Administrator for its
reliance on the opinions of three independent medical physicians
because the examiners neither “examined nor spoke with M s .
19
Richards.”15 This argument carries little heft. The fact that
an independent medical examiner may not physically examine a
claimant does not detract from his or her reliably. See Gannon,
360 F.3d at 214 (“we have treated a nonexamining physician’s
review of a claimant’s file as reliable medical evidence on
several occasions”). Moreover, the Claims Administrator’s
decision was not based solely on the recommendations of the
independent examiners. The Claims Administrator decision
included citations to the evaluations of Richards’ physical
therapist as well as Drs. Glassman, Thone and PA-C Santangelo,
all of whom physically examined Richards. See Admin. R. D00410,
D00557. As a result, the Claims Administrator was justified in
relying in part on the opinions of the independent medical
examiners as a basis for its decision that Richards did not
qualify for continued LTD benefits.
IV. CONCLUSION
15
Richards also claims that the independent medical examiners’
opinions should be discredited because they made their decisions
“based on their interpretation of the reports that were
submitted previously.” Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Admin. R. at 9,
Doc. N o . 1 1 . However, two of the examiners decisions were made
as part of Richards’ appeal, after Richards supplemented her
claims file with additional medical records. See Admin. R.
D00457, D00462, D00469-531, D00533, D00544-550.
20
The evidence in the record, including the opinions of the
independent medical examiners, reasonably supports a conclusion
that Richards was able to resume her position as an RSC at AT&T
Mobility. As a result, the Claims Administrator’s decision that
Richards was not entitled to the continued receipt of LTD
benefits must be upheld. Accordingly, I grant the Program’s
motion for judgment on the administrative record (Doc. N o . 12)
and deny Richards’ motion (Doc. N o . 1 1 ) . The clerk is directed
to enter judgment and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
February 1 6 , 2011
cc: John R. Martin, Esq.
Stephen L . Rosetti, Esq.
Vicky S . Roundy, Esq.
Todd J. Shill, Esq.
21
