Opinion
8:21-cv-0838-KKM-JSS
06-23-2022
VALADA STRAKER, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, United States District Judge
Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America terminated Plaintiff Valada Straker's short-term disability benefits and denied her claim for long-term disability benefits. Straker brought this action seeking judicial review of that decision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, (Doc. 26; Doc. 28), which the Court referred to the Magistrate Judge for a recommendation.
After reviewing the motions, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant summary judgment to Prudential and deny summary judgment to Straker. (Doc. 40.) The fourteen-day deadline to object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation has passed without objection. Nevertheless, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's recommendation de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); LeCroyv. McNeil, 397 Fed.Appx. 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
After a complete review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. As the Magistrate Judge explained, Prudential's decision to deny benefits to Straker was not arbitrary and capricious because there is a reasonable basis in the record to support the decision. See Eady v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 203 Fed.Appx. 326, 328 (11th Cir. 2006) ("As long as a reasonable basis appears for the plan administrator's decision, it must be upheld as not being arbitrary and capricious, even if there is evidence that would support a contrary decision."). Specifically, Dr. Mendoza's opinion regarding Straker's functional capacity and Ms. Corrigan's opinion-based on Dr. Mendoza's medical opinion-that Straker could perform the material and substantial duties of her job as a customer service representative, notwithstanding her restrictions and limitations, support the conclusion that Prudential's decision to deny her benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. (Doc. 40 at 8-9.)
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is DENIED.
4. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions and deadlines, to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant, and to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.