Monty Jones v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company; Wells Fargo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1049
___________________________
Monty Jones
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company; Wells Fargo
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: August 29, 2025
Filed: September 5, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Monty Jones appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
in his Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action arising from the
1The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

denial of short-term disability (STD) benefits by appellee Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company (Lincoln), administrator of the Wells Fargo & Company Short-
Term Disability Plan. Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that
Lincoln did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’s STD claim. See Carrow v.
Standard Ins. Co., 664 F.3d 1254, 1258 (8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of grant of
summary judgment; if plan reserves discretionary power to construe terms or
determine eligibility, administrator’s decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Lincoln did not abuse its discretion by relying on the opinions of its nurse consultants
over those of Jones’s counselor, nor was Lincoln required to provide an independent
medical examination (IME) of Jones before deciding his claim. See Rutledge v.
Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Bos., 481 F.3d 655, 661 (8th Cir. 2007) (ERISA plan
administrator need not order IME when insured’s evidence supporting disability
claim is facially insufficient); Coker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 281 F.3d 793, 799 (8th
Cir. 2002) (where there is conflict of opinion between treating physician and plan
administrator’s reviewing physicians, administrator has discretion to find employee
is not disabled unless such decision lacks support in record). Lincoln also did not fail
to consider Jones’s combination of conditions, as its denial letters reflected thorough
review of all of the medical evidence submitted. See Rutledge, 481 F.3d at 660 (plan
administrator did not fail to consider claimant’s medical conditions in combination,
as administrator evaluated his conditions and status as whole in denying claim).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Jones’s pending
motions.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --