Kelly Moberg v. Phillips Electronics North America Corporation Group Welfare Benefit Plan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3721
___________________________
Kelly Moberg
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Phillips Electronics North America Corporation Group Welfare Benefit Plan;
Phillips Electronics North America Corporation
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: August 6, 2014
Filed: August 15, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BYE, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Kelly Moberg appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of
continued long term disability benefits (LTD) in her action under the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Upon de novo review, we find that the
district court used the correct standard of review, see Siegel v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins.
Co., 702 F.3d 1044, 1047-48 (8th Cir. 2013); and that the court properly applied that
standard in determining whether to uphold the decision to discontinue Moberg’s LTD
based on a 24-month limitation covering disabilities from neuromusculoskeletal and
soft tissue disorders, see Gerhardt v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 736 F.3d
777, 780 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing de novo district court’s application of abuse-of-
discretion standard; plan administrator’s decision will be upheld if reasonable, i.e.,
supported by substantial evidence). Specifically, we agree with the district court that
there was no merit to Moberg’s contention that the limitation did not apply to her, or
to her contentions concerning certain exceptions to the limitation.2 The judgment of
the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
1The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
2We decline to consider the new assertions Moberg makes in her reply brief.
See Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 766 n.5 (8th Cir. 1996).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --