BRONE v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This ERISA case is before me on Plaintiff Lisa Brone, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 40] and Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 39]. After consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the case file, and for the reasons stated below, I enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

I. Background

Plaintiff was employed by Paladina Health, LLC, as a family physician and covered under long term disability policy number LTD 131365 (the “Policy”) issued by Defendant. Administrative Record (“AR”), ECF No. 32, 0001 & 1722. Plaintiff last worked as a family physician in May of 2020. AR 463. Plaintiff was awarded Social Security benefits based on a determination that she was disabled as of May 23, 2020. AR 699.

A. Plaintiff's Medical Conditions

Judy Lane, M.D., began treating Plaintiff for migraines in November of 2017. AR 0401. Dr. Lane's office notes from November of 2019 to November of 2022 reflect that Dr. Lane treated Plaintiff's migraines with different medications. AR 411, 415, 417, 422-0423, 425, 427, 438, 507, 681, 810, 823 & 1742. Dr. Lane's office notes also reflect that Plaintiff reported experiencing several migraines/migraine days a month throughout this period. AR 411, 414, 417, 422, 427, 437, 509, 680, 810, 1740 & 1744.

Ed Cotgageorge, Ph.D., performed the first of two neuropsychological assessments of Plaintiff in October and November of 2020 and diagnosed her with a mild cognitive impairment. AR 462-473. In his report, Dr. Cotgageorge stated:

[Plaintiff] shows not only specific deficits in visual memory and attention but her overall intellectual functioning abilities have significantly declined. Her premorbid baseline of overall intellectual functioning abilities was in the Above Average to Exceptional range. These results show overall intellectual functioning abilities in the Average range. This is considered a statistically significant decline in overall functioning.

AR 471.

In 2021, Terri Fox, M.D., began treating Plaintiff for chronic inflammatory response syndrome (“CIRS”). AR 863 -874. According to Dr. Fox, “CIRS has complicated the treatment of [Plaintiff's] migraine headaches and contributes to her cognitive dysfunction and fatigue.” AR 1545.

B. The Policy

The Policy “provides income replacement benefits for Total Disability for Sickness of Injury” and provides that Defendant “will pay a Monthly Benefit if an Insured (1) is Totally Disabled as the result of a Sickness or Injury ․ and (4) submits satisfactory proof of Total Disability to [Defendant].” AR 1 & 17. “The Monthly Benefit will stop on the earliest of: (1) the date the Insured ceases to be Totally Disabled; ․ or (4) the date the Insured fails to furnish the required proof of Total Disability.” AR 18.

“Totally Disabled” and “Total Disability” under the Policy mean “during the Elimination Period and for the first 24 months for which a Monthly Benefit is payable, an Insured cannot perform the material duties of his/her Regular Occupation.” AR 10. “[A]fter a Monthly Benefit has been paid for 24 months,” these terms mean that “an Insured cannot perform the material duties of Any Occupation.” Id. During the Any Occupation period, an insured is considered Totally Disabled “if due to an Injury or Sickness he or she is capable of only performing the material duties on a part-time basis or part of the material duties on a full-time basis.” Id.

The Policy defines “Regular Occupation” as “the occupation the Insured is regularly performing when ‘Total Disability’ begins.” AR 9. “Any Occupation” is defined as “an occupation normally performed in the national economy for which an Insured is reasonably suited based upon his/her education, training, or experience.” Id.

C. Claim History

In support of her claim for disability benefits, Plaintiff submitted an Attending Physician Statement dated May 28, 2020 from Dr. Lane. AR 404. Dr. Lane diagnosed Plaintiff with “chronic migraine, without aura, intractable, with status migranosus.” Id. Dr. Lane stated that Plaintiff's symptoms first appeared in “[a]pproximately 2015” and rendered her continuously unable to work from May 26, 2020 to August 14, 2020. Id.

Defendant approved Plaintiff's claim for long term disability (“LTD”) benefits on February 4, 2021, and paid retroactive benefits beginning November 22, 2020. AR 302-303.

On February 14, 2022, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it would be gathering updated information to determine if Plaintiff was Totally Disabled from performing Any Occupation under the stricter definition of Total Disability that would be in effect beginning November 22, 2022. AR 353-355.

By letter dated March 29, 2022, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it had determined that she was not entitled to LTD benefits after March 25, 2022. AR 361-363. By way of explanation, Defendant stated that it had reviewed the information in Plaintiff's claim file including October 5, 2021 to March 2, 2022 records from Dr. Lane that included headache logs completed by Plaintiff, notations of significant arm tremors and improved migraines, and an opinion that Plaintiff would have difficulty working as a physician given the degree of cognitive dysfunction related to her migraines. AR 362. Defendant further noted that its Clinical Medical Staff had opined that “in the absence of psychiatric contribution, there is insufficient clinical evidence to support a physical condition or documentation of a severity in symptoms that would preclude [Plaintiff] from performing at least light level of work function.” Id. See also AR 129.

On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff notified Defendant that she wished to appeal the termination of her LTD benefits AR 269. Her attorney submitted a letter dated September 21, 2022, with the following enclosed documents (AR at 1527-1528):

(1) a September 12, 2022 vocational report from Karen Starr in which she stated that “[b]ased on the medical evidence reviewed, [Plaintiff's] symptoms and conditions would prevent her from returning to her previously performed work or any work in the national economy (AR 1532-1542);”

(2) a July 25, 2022 letter from Dr. Lane in which she stated that the fewest number of migraine days Plaintiff experienced over the last two years was four in one month but that she still experienced about eight migraine days a month on average and that “[d]ue primarily to her migraine headaches and related cognitive impairment, I do not think that [Plaintiff] will be able to return to gainful employment in any capacity (AR 1547-1548);”

(3) an August 29, 2022 letter from Dr. Fox in which she stated that she “agree[d] with [Dr. Lane's] description of [Plaintiff's] migraine headaches and cognitive dysfunction and agree[d] that her symptoms would prevent any work, especially work as a physician (AR 1545);”

(4) an April 2022 functional abilities evaluation by Kristine Couch which stated that Plaintiff “demonstrated numerous impairments which present concern for her ability to work on a full-time basis due to significant fatigue; significant migraine headaches, tremors, visual limitations (reading, tracking written information while reading), significant light sensitivity, sound sensitivity, cognitive concerns (memory, multi-tasking, managing external stimuli, multiple step directions), bilateral hand limitations (strength, dexterity and eye-hand coordination), decreased ability of the hands to work together (bilateral hand tasks); decreased lifting tolerances, decreased workplace tolerance (2 hours)” and that Plaintiff “is not capable of returning to her usual and customary job demands as a Physician on a full-time basis secondary to the impairments noted during testing” and “also appears unable to manage full-time employment in any setting due to her limitations (AR 1658);” and

(5) an April of 2022 neuropsychological assessment performed by Dr. Cotgageorge in which he states that “[t]he current test results are essentially unchanged from the results in October/November 2020;” that Plaintiff “does not appear capable of resuming her pre-claim occupation;” and that all of Plaintiff's rated residual functioning capacities “will move into the markedly to severely impaired range with exacerbations in migraine headaches and symptoms” and “fluctuate throughout the day due to intraday fatigue (AR 1696-1697).”

Jon Glass, M.D., a board-certified neurologist retained by a third-party vendor, reviewed Plaintiff's records and issued a report dated December 5, 2022 (AR 1701-1708), in which he stated that Plaintiff had functional limitations “from3/25/22 and ongoing.” AR 1706. Dr. Glass further stated:

From a neurological standpoint, the claimant has a well-controlled migraine disorder. She has a normal neurological examination except for tremor. Complaints of back pain were documented, but these are not elucidated upon by any provider, including her neurologist, Dr. Lane. She also has a functional neurological disorder resulting in a tremor that impairs upper extremity function. Any functional impairment derives from the functional neurological disorder that is causing her tremor. This would result in the following restrictions/limitations, based on an eight-hour day and five-day/40-hour workweek:

Sit: 8 hours per 8-hour work day

Stand: 8 hours per 8-hour work day

Walk: 8 hours per 8-hour work day

Push: Up to 10 lbs. occasionally

Pull: Up to 10 lbs. occasionally

Lift: Up to 10 lbs. occasionally

Carry: Up to 10 lbs. occasionally

Bend: Frequently

Crouch: Frequently

Crawl: Frequently

Kneel: Frequently

Reach above shoulder level: Constantly

Reach at desk/waist level: Constantly

Reach below desk/waist level: Constantly

Type: Occasionally

Simple grasp: Constantly

Firm grasp: Frequently

Fine manipulate: Occasionally

Use of foot controls: Constantly

Climb stairs: Occasionally

Climb ladders: Never

Heavy machinery use/exposure: Never

Id.

Kelly Baylan, M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist retained by a third-party vendor, reviewed Plaintiff's records and issued a report dated December 9, 2022, in which she stated that “[t]here are ․ no psychiatric functional limitations from March 25, 2022, and ongoing.” AR 1717.

Debra Kaitschuck performed a vocational review for Defendant dated December 13, 2022, and stated that the functional limitations assessed by Dr. Glass would preclude Plaintiff from performing her own light exertion occupation. AR 1722-1723. Ms. Kaitschuck also performed a residual employability analysis to determine if there were any alternative occupations that Plaintiff had the ability to perform. AR 1725-1731. Ms. Kaitschuck found that “in light of [Plaintiff's] physical capacities and in consideration of her educational background and vocational history,” she could work in the sedentary positions of research associate or consultant. AR 1726. Per the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, the identified research associate position requires a general learning ability above the 89th percentile, and the position of consultant requires a general learning ability in the 67th-89th percentile. AR 1729-1731.

On December 15, 2022, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it would pay her LTD benefits for the remainder of the Regular Occupation period, i.e. to November 22, 2022, but she would not be eligible for LTD benefits after that date because her condition did not preclude her from performing Any Occupation. AR 375-377. Defendant further advised Plaintiff that “no formal Appeal Determination has been rendered at this time” and that she could submit additional information for consideration. AR 376.

On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff submitted additional medical records and a letter dated January 24, 2023, from Dr. Cotgageorge. AR 1736-1746. Dr. Cortageorge commented on Dr. Glass's report as follows:

[His] statements failed to appreciate that there were significant cognitive difficulties noted in both the 4/20/2022 neuropsychological evaluation and the October/November 2020 neuropsychological evaluation. In both of these neuropsychological evaluations it was shown that Dr. Brone had severe cognitive impairment with visual memory. She shows at least moderately impaired sustained attention and visual working memory that is likely to be exacerbated by fatigue and migraine headaches. During episodes of increased fatigue and/or migraine headache[,] moderately impaired will likely increasing (sic) to severe impairment for sustained attention and visual working memory.

AR 1739. Dr. Cotgageorge further stated:

Dr. Lane reported in a note on 7/27/21 that Dr. Brone was experiencing 6-9 migraines per month. Ongoing fatigue and the frequency of migraine headaches are likely to contribute to a further decline in cognitive functioning from current baseline impairment in the areas noted above. In combination[,] these cognitive factors are likely to limit her ability to complete an eight hour workday at any job.

Id.

Defendant provided the additional information submitted by Plaintiff to Dr. Glass and Dr. Bylan for review. Dr. Bylan responded that “[t]here is no change from a psychiatric perspective from the original review.” AR 1748. Dr. Glass responded:

The additional information does not change my prior opinion. The new information from Dr. Lane from 8/24/22 and 11/15/22 indicates continued complaints of migraines with 4-7 headache days per month. Dr. Lane did not document any cognitive impairment or any cognitive or other adverse effects from prescribed medication.

The communication from [Dr. Cotgageorge] indicated that the claimant's migraines for contributing to her cognitive decline (sic). Migraines, particularly migraines occurring 6 to 9 times per month[,] does (sic) not affect cognitive function. It may temporarily impair attention but would not cause a permanent impairment in function.

AR 1754.

By letter dated February 9, 2023, Defendant notified Plaintiff of its determination that she was not entitled to LTD benefits beyond November 22, 2022, the date that the Policy switched to the Any Occupation definition of Totally Disabled. AR 381-388. By this action, Plaintiff requests review of Defendant's decision to deny her LTD benefits after November 22, 2022.

II. Standard of Review

Where, as here, both parties in an ERISA case move for summary judgment “the factual determination of eligibility for benefits is decided solely on the administrative record, and the non-moving party is not entitled to the usual inferences in its favor.” LaAsmar v. Phelps Dodge Corp. Life, Accidental Death & Dismemberment & Dependent Life Ins. Plan, 605 F.3d 789, 796 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bard v. Boston Shipping Ass'n, 471 F.3d 229, 235 (1st Cir. 2006)).

The Policy does not grant Defendant discretionary authority, and the denial of Plaintiff's claim is therefore subject to de novo review. See LaAsmar, 605 F.3d at 796 (denial of benefits covered by ERISA is reviewed de novo unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan).

“When applying a de novo standard in the ERISA context, the role of the court reviewing a denial of benefits is to determine whether the administrator made a correct decision. The administrator's decision is accorded no deference or presumption of correctness.” Niles v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 269 F. App'x 827, 832 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hoover v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 801, 808-809 (6th Cir. 2002)). “[T]he standard is not whether ‘substantial evidence’ or ‘some evidence’ supported the administrator's decision; it is whether the plaintiff's claim for benefits is supported by a preponderance of the evidence based on the district court's independent review.” Id. The burden of proof is on the claimant. See LaAsmar, 605 F.3d at 800 (it was the claimants’ burden to establish a covered loss).

In reviewing a decision to deny ERISA benefits, my consideration is limited to the rationale given for the denial. Spradley v. Owens-Ill. Hourly Emps. Welfare Benefit Plan, 686 F.3d 1135, 1140 (10th Cir. 2012).

III. Analysis

The issue before me is whether Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that her medical conditions rendered her unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation for which she is qualified by age, education, and experience as of November 22, 2022.

A. Plaintiff's Evidence

To undermine the evidence Plaintiff cites in support of her LTD claim after November 22, 2022, Defendant first asserts that a diagnosis alone does not prove disability. This general proposition is an accurate statement of the law. See Madrid v. Astrue, 243 F. App'x 387, 391 (10th Cir. 2007) (in context of social security disability, “case law makes clear that a diagnosis of a condition does not establish disability ․ question is whether a person's impairment significantly limits his ability to engage in substantial gainful activity”). Plaintiff has presented far more evidence, however, than mere diagnoses of potentially disabling conditions. As detailed above, this evidence includes a vocational report, a functional abilities evaluation, correspondence and records from her treatment providers, and neuropsychological assessments, which all expressly support Plaintiff's claim that she is unable to work in Any Occupation as of November 22, 2022, because of her diagnosed medical conditions.

Defendant also asserts that it is not required to give special weight to the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians. It is generally true that “an administrator is not required to defer to the opinions of a treating physician.” D.K. v. United Behavioral Health, 67 F.4th 1224, 1237 (10th Cir. 2023). “However, a reviewer may not arbitrarily refuse to credit such opinions if they constitute reliable evidence from the claimant.” Id. Thus, Defendant may not disregard the well-supported opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians.

I will address in turn the other alleged deficiencies that Defendant argues undermine the evidence supporting Plaintiff's LTD claim after November 22, 2022.

1. Dr. Cotgageorge's Neuropsychological Assessments and Correspondence

Defendant argues that Dr. Cotgageroge statement in his April of 2022 neuropsychological assessment that Plaintiff did not “appear capable of resuming her pre-claim occupation” fails to support that Plaintiff was unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation as of November 22, 2022. In his January 23, 2023 letter, however, Dr. Cotgageorge stated that the limitations he assessed in Plaintiff's cognitive functioning “are likely to limit her ability to complete an eight hour workday in any job.” AR 1739 (emphasis added).

Moreover, the specific limitations Dr. Cotgageorge assessed for Plaintiff are directly relevant to her ability to perform the material duties of the identified jobs of research associate and consultant on a part-time basis or part of the material duties of these occupations on a full-time basis. These limitations include: (1) a marked impairment in Plaintiff's ability to understand and remember detailed instructions; (2) a moderate to marked impairment in her ability to maintain concentration and attention for extended periods (of about 15-30 minutes); (3) a “low average” ability to perform activities within a schedule and maintain regular attendance and be punctual; and (4) a “low average” ability to marked impairment in her ability to respond to changes in the work setting. AR at 1697.

Citing to Dr. Cotgageorge's October/November 2020 neuropsychological assessment of Plaintiff, Defendant notes that Dr. Cotgageorge assessed Plaintiff with a lesser degree of impairment in other areas of functioning. Reply to Motion, ECF No. 46, at 6-7. However, Dr. Cotgageorge's April 2022 assessment is more contemporaneous to Plaintiff's claim for LTD benefits after November 22, 2022, and identifies a greater level of impairment in some of these areas. Compare AR 472-473 with AR 1697. Dr. Cotgageorge also stated in his April of 2022 assessment that “[i]t is important to note that all of the following residual functional capacities will move into the markedly to severely impaired range with exacerbations in migraine headache presence and symptoms” and “are likely to fluctuate throughout the day due to ․ fatigue.” AR 1697 (emphasis added).

Defendant also argues Dr. Cotgageorge's neuropsychological assessments are too remote in time to constitute proof of Plaintiff's disability from Any Occupation as of November 22, 2022. Prior to this appeal, however, Defendant did not express any concerns with the timeliness of any of Plaintiff's medical evidence, rendering this an impermissible post hoc rationalization for the denial decision. See Spradley, 686 F.3d at 1140 (review of decision denying ERISA benefits is limited to the rationale given for the denial). This argument also ignores Dr. Cotgageorge's January 24, 2023 letter in which he affirmed his previous findings and further stated:

Ongoing fatigue and the frequency of migraine headaches are likely to contribute to a further decline in cognitive functioning from current baseline impairment․ In combination these cognitive factors are likely to limit [Plaintiff's] ability to complete an eight hour workday at any job.

AR 1739.

Defendant's efforts to bolster its timeliness argument with respect to Dr. Cotgageorge's assessments by citation to Dr. Lane's November 15, 2022 progress note that “[Plaintiff] is doing much better” and the fact that there are no medical records from August of 2022 to November 15, 2022 are unavailing. Dr. Lane's vague statement about Plaintiff's improved status in November of 2022 does not establish a significant pertinent change after Dr. Cotgageorge's April of 2022 assessment and confirms that Plaintiff continued to experience and be treated for her migraines. Specifically, Dr. Lane's November 15, 2022 progress note indicates that Plaintiff had eight migraine days in August of 2022; six in September; four in October; and four up to that point in November, AR 1740, thereby supporting Plaintiff's claim that her migraines and related impairments were largely unabated.

In conclusion then, I find that Dr. Cotgageorge's neuropsychological assessments and correspondence support Plaintiff's claim that her medical conditions rendered her unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation for which she is qualified by age, education, and experience as of November 22, 2022.

2. April 2022 Functional Abilities Evaluation

Based on the results of an in person functional abilities evaluation conducted over two days in April of 2022, Karen Couch, a registered occupational therapist, opined that Plaintiff “appears unable to manage full-time employment in any setting due to her limitations.” AR 1658. As with Dr. Cotgageorge, Defendant argues that this evaluation is too remote in time to constitute proof of Plaintiff's disability from Any Occupation as of November 22, 2022. I am unpersuaded by this argument by the same reasoning articulated above and find that the functional abilities evaluation supports Plaintiff's claim that her medical conditions rendered her unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation as of November 22, 2022.

3. Dr. Lane's Records and Correspondence

Defendant primarily argues that Dr. Lane's July 25, 2022 opinion that Plaintiff's migraine headaches and related cognitive impairment rendered her unable to work in any capacity is not credible evidence that Plaintiff unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation as of November 22, 2022 because this opinion is contradicted by Dr. Lane's November 15, 2022 progress note that Plaintiff was “doing much better.” I disagree.

The vague statement about Plaintiff's improved status in Dr. Lane's November 15, 2022 progress note does not establish a significant change in Plaintiff's migraine headaches, cognitive impairment, or fatigue that Dr. Lane found to be work preclusive. In fact, in documenting that Plaintiff experienced four to eight migraines days from August to mid-November of 2022, this progress note bolsters Dr. Lane's opinion that Plaintiff was unable to work in any capacity because her disabling conditions were ongoing up to the date that the Any Occupation definition of Totally Disabled went into effect.

Defendant also argues that Dr. Lane's opinion that Plaintiff was unable to work in any capacity lacks merit because some of Plaintiff's migraine days may have occurred on the weekend and would therefore not affect her ability to work. This argument is speculative and ignores Dr. Lane's statements that Plaintiff's suffers from cognitive impairment and fatigue even when she is migraine-free. AR 1547-1548.

Finally, I am unpersuaded by Defendant's argument that Dr. Lane's opinion that Plaintiff was unable to work in any capacity lacks merit she relied on Plaintiff's self-reporting of the occurrence and symptomology of her migraine headaches. It is unclear what objective evidence could have provided this same information. Dr. Lane's treatment records and correspondence include objective evidence of the different medications she prescribed to treat Plaintiff's migraine headaches, and her opinion is supported by Dr. Cotgageorge and Ms. Couch's findings and assessed limitations.

I therefore find that Dr. Lane's records and correspondence support Plaintiff's claim that her medical conditions rendered her unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation for which she is qualified by age, education, and experience as of November 22, 2022.

4. September 2022 Vocational Report

Defendant argues that Karen Starr's vocational analysis is flawed because it “lacks neutrality” and is predicated on unsupported opinions from medical and vocational professionals that Plaintiff is unable to work in an alternative occupation. I have already addressed and rejected Defendant's arguments regarding the opinions from Dr. Cotgageorge, Dr. Lane, and Ms. Couch. I am also unpersuaded that Ms. Starr's analysis is biased and find that it further supports Plaintiff's claim that her medical conditions rendered her unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation as of November 22, 2022.

B. Defendant's Evidence

In addition to the alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff's evidence of disability discussed above, Defendant argues that its decision to deny Plaintiff's claim for LTD benefits after November 22, 2022, is supported by the medical opinions of Dr. Glass and Dr. Bylan and by Ms. Kaitschuck's vocational review. Plaintiff is not claiming that she is disabled from working in Any Occupation because of a psychiatric condition, and Dr. Baylan's opinions from a “psychiatric perspective” therefore have no bearing on Plaintiff's claim for LTD benefits. I limit my analysis of Defendant's evidence to the opinions of Dr. Glass and Ms. Kaitschuck accordingly.

In his December 5, 2022 report, Dr. Glass referenced Dr. Cotgageorge's neuropsychological assessments but not his assessment of numerous related functional limitations. AR 1702 & 1704. Dr. Glass also acknowledged that Plaintiff has “cognitive disturbances,” AR 1706, but did not himself assess or even discuss any functional limitations related to Plaintiff's mild cognitive impairment, migraines, or fatigue. These omissions, which Dr. Glass failed to rectify in his addendum report, are curious and suggest that Dr. Glass did not provide a full and fair review of Plaintiff's claim of disability.

Also curious are Dr. Glass's characterization of Plaintiff's migraines as “well-controlled” despite their continued regular occurrence; his critique of Dr. Lane's failure to support Plaintiff's cognitive impairment despite the evidence from Dr. Cotgageorge on this issue; and his sole reference to Plaintiff's comprehensive functional abilities evaluation to be in relation to back pain. The combination of these shortcomings precludes Dr. Glass's opinions from refuting the convincing evidence that Plaintiff relies on to demonstrate that she was unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation for which she is qualified by age, education, and experience as of November 22, 2022.

Because Ms. Kaitschuck's vocational review relied solely on the physical functional limitations assessed by Dr. Glass which failed to account for the effects of Plaintiff's migraines, cognitive impairment, or fatigue, it likewise fails to refute Plaintiff's evidence.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the record before me, I conclude that Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that her medical conditions rendered her unable to perform the essential duties of Any Occupation for which she is qualified by age, education, and experience as of November 22, 2022, and that Defendant's termination of Plaintiff's LTD as of that date was in error.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 40] is GRANTED;

2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 39] is DENIED;

3. Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's claim for LTD benefits after November 22, 2022 is REVERSED and Plaintiff's request for an award of LTD benefits after November 22, 2022 is GRANTED; and

4. Because the parties’ briefing did not address the benefits or other amounts awardable to Plaintiff, the parties shall confer and submit a proposed order of judgment reflecting the total amount due within twenty-one (21) days of this order. If the parties are unable to agree on the amounts due, this Court retains jurisdiction for further consideration of this issue.

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE