[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 15, 2007
No. 07-12752 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00339-CV-H-S
GREGORY HAYES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
d.b.a. Benefit Management Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(November 15, 2007)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Hayes (“Hayes”), appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of The Hartford Life Insurance Company
(“Hartford”). We review the district court’s rulings on motion for summary
judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards that governed the district
court. Williams v. BellSouth Telecomms. Inc., 373 F.3d 1132, 1134 (11th Cir.
2004).
This is an ERISA case. Hartford, the insurer and plan administrator, denied
Hayes long-term disability benefits because Hartford concluded that Hayes was
capable of working in a “light to sedentary range” occupation. The district court
found, and the parties agree, that the framework for reviewing Hartford’s decision
is the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard. Williams, 373 F.3d at 1137-
38. The first prong of this standard is to conduct de novo review “to determine
whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is ‘wrong’ ( i.e., the
court disagrees with the administrator’s decision); if it is not, then end the inquiry
and affirm the decision.” Id. at 1138 (footnote omitted).
Here, we do not proceed past the first prong. Hayes, who was a
commercially-licensed truck driver for ten years, concedes that he has the physical
ability to perform sedentary to light occupations, but only contends that he does
not have the intellectual ability for any occupation within the sedentary to light
2
occupation range. Hartford produced evidence that Hayes had the education,
training, or experience to perform various occupations within the sedentary to
light occupational range, such as a loading inspector, truck safety inspector, or
perishable-freight inspector. Upon a thorough consideration of the record, we
agree with the district court; the evidence indicates that Hayes has the intellectual
capacity to perform work in the sedentary to light occupational range.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3