Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action under ERISA, alleging that defendant-disability benefit plan was unreasonable in revoking plaintiff’s disability benefit after plan administrator found that plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not disabling condition. Terms of plan defined disability as inability to engage for profit any occupation commensurate with plaintiff’s education, training and experience, and plaintiff’s medical evidence satisfied said definition where plaintiff’s doctors established that she experienced pain and fatigue that precluded her from working regular schedule. Moreover, plan’s doctors who found her not disabled either spent only token amount of time examining plaintiff or rendered opinions that were not considered by defendant. Also, defendant failed to indicate what job or kind of job plaintiff would be capable of performing if it had canceled plaintiff’s benefits. (Dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
ERISA