Andrew Brooks v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1401
ANDREW BROOKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00085-TSE-IDD)
Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: July 18, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Benjamin W. Glass, III, BENJAMIN W. GLASS & ASSOCIATES PC,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Elizabeth J. Bondurant, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
(US) LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Ian R. Dickinson, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US)
LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Brooks filed a complaint, pursuant to the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, against Hartford Life and
Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”), alleging that Hartford abused its discretion
when denying his claim for continued long term disability (“LTD”) benefits. The parties
filed cross motions for judgment on the record, and the district court awarded judgment to
Hartford. Brooks now appeals, and we affirm.
“This Court reviews de novo a district court’s review of a coverage decision by an
ERISA plan administrator, applying the same standard of review as the district court
applied.” Helton v. AT & T Inc., 709 F.3d 343, 351 (4th Cir. 2013). Where, as here, the
“ERISA benefit plan vests with the plan administrator the discretionary authority to make
eligibility determinations for beneficiaries, a reviewing court evaluates the plan
administrator’s decision for abuse of discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
“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 set forth in Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Associates Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d 335, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2000). Griffin v.
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 898 F.3d 371, 381 (4th Cir. 2018). Ultimately, “to be
held reasonable, the administrator’s decision must result from a deliberate, principled
reasoning process and be supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (cleaned up). “[W]e will
not disturb a plan administrator’s decision if the decision is reasonable, even if we would

-- 2 of 3 --

3
have come to a contrary conclusion independently.” Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 609
F.3d 622, 630 (4th Cir. 2010).
After reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that Hartford
did not abuse its discretion in denying Brooks’ claim for continued LTD benefits. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment substantially for the reasons stated in its
opinion. Brooks v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-00085-TSE-IDD (E.D.
Va. Mar. 11, 2021). 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

-- 3 of 3 --