Williams v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GLORIA WILLIAMS, 
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
 No. 09-1025
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.


GLORIA WILLIAMS, 
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant,  No. 09-1568
and
CINGULAR WIRELESS; ARTHUR
FINCH; SHIRLEY BYRD; MARTINEZ
JOHNSON,
Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III, District Judge.
(5:07-cv-00074-D)
Argued: May 13, 2010
Decided: June 30, 2010
2 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and
Arthur L. ALARCÓN, Senior Circuit Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by
designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opin-
ion, in which Judge Duncan and Senior Judge Alarcón joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Iole Ariadne Staples, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, New York, New York, for
Appellant. Andrew O. Whiteman, HARTZELL & WHITE-
MAN, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Stephen A. Dunn, EMANUEL & DUNN, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.

OPINION

KEENAN, Circuit Judge:

In this consolidated appeal, we consider whether the district
court erred in holding that an administrator of an employee
welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-
1461, abused its discretion when the administrator terminated
the plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits. We also consider
whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding
attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff. For the reasons stated below,
we affirm.

I.

Plaintiff-Appellee Gloria Williams was employed by
Cingular Wireless as a customer services clerk from Septem-
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 3
ber 2000 until the middle of 2003. In this capacity, Williams’
daily responsibilities consisted primarily of speaking with
customers on the telephone and typing data into a computer.
Williams enrolled in Cingular’s insurance plan (the plan),
which was issued by Defendant-Appellant Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (MetLife). The plan includes both short-
term disability benefits and long-term disability benefits.
MetLife, as the claims administrator, serves in the dual role
of evaluating benefit claims and paying approved claims. The
terms of the plan grant MetLife the discretionary authority to
interpret the plan and to determine benefit eligibility.

In the middle of the 1990s, Williams began suffering from
medical issues with her hands and wrists, and was diagnosed
with "trigger finger" disorder,1 tendinitis, and carpel tunnel
syndrome. Williams has had nine medical procedures to treat
these conditions, including six operations to treat her trigger
finger disorder, one operation to remove infected tissue result-
ing from the surgeries to relieve her trigger finger condition,
and two procedures to address her carpel tunnel syndrome.
According to Williams and her treating physicians, these con-
ditions made it very difficult for Williams to use her hands
without experiencing severe pain for work activities such as
typing on a computer.
1
The medical treatise Gray’s Anatomy defines "trigger finger" as a con-
dition that
affects the fibrous flexor sheaths of the fingers or thumb within
the palm. The affected sheath thickens and entraps the contained
tendons, which become constricted at the site of entrapment . . . .
The finger now snaps as the tendon nodule passes through the
constriction on flexing the finger. The corresponding extensor
muscle is insufficiently powerful to extend the affected finger.
The patient does this passively, accompanied by a painful snap.
Treatment frequently requires surgical division of the A1 pulley
of the flexor sheath to relieve the stricture.
Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice 879 (Susan
Standring ed., 40th ed. 2008).
4 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
In April 2003, Williams left work due to these conditions
and filed a claim with MetLife for short-term disability bene-
fits. MetLife approved short-term disability benefits for a
five-week period but then terminated those benefits, at which
point Williams returned to work. About this time, Williams
also was being treated for neck and back pain.

After returning to her job, Williams worked for about one
week before leaving work again. MetLife renewed Williams’
short-term disability benefits after her doctor advised her to
"avoid repetitive[ ] computer work and hand use." Williams’
short-term disability benefits lapsed in September 2003, after
one of her physicians concluded that she was able to return to
her job on a reduced schedule. Williams returned to her job
for one day, and worked for about four hours before stopping
because she was unable to perform her job duties without
severe pain.

After leaving work, Williams again applied for short-term
disability benefits. MetLife approved short-term disability
benefits for Williams through October 30, 2003, which was
the maximum period allowable for those benefits under the
plan. MetLife then referred Williams’ claim for consideration
for long-term disability benefits. MetLife approved long-term
disability benefits for Williams in December 2003.

For about the next 18 months, Williams continued to expe-
rience neck, back, and hand pain. During this period, MetLife
periodically requested and reviewed Williams’ medical
records, informing her in February and March of 2005 that
her long-term disability benefits would continue.

In August 2005, MetLife terminated Williams’ long-term
disability benefits. MetLife sent Williams a letter explaining
that it was terminating her long-term disability benefits "be-
cause medical documents do not substantiate [her] inability to
perform [her] customary occupation." In support of its deci-
sion, MetLife appeared to rely on a report from Dr. Carl L.
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 5
Smith, one of Williams’ treating physicians, reflecting Wil-
liams’ April 1, 2005 visit with Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith’s report
related Williams’ statements that she was having "good and
bad days," and that her pain averaged a three on a ten-point
scale. Dr. Smith’s report did not specifically address Wil-
liams’ hand and wrist pain, nor did the report conclude that
Williams was able to return to work.

After MetLife’s termination of her long-term disability
benefits in August 2005, Williams exercised her appeal rights
under the plan in September 2005 and submitted additional
medical evaluations in support of her appeal. MetLife referred
Williams’ file to Dr. John D. Thomas II, an independent Cer-
tified Disability Evaluator and board-certified physical medi-
cine and rehabilitation specialist, and to Dr. Lee Becker, an
independent physician consultant and certified psychiatry spe-
cialist.

Dr. Thomas reviewed the information in Williams’ file at
the time of the initial denial of benefits, as well as updated
information submitted after that denial. Dr. Thomas’ analysis
focused on Williams’ medical issues with her neck and back.
With regard to Williams’ medical issues with her hands and
wrists, Dr. Thomas’ concluded that:

Certainly . . . there is ample medical record support
for inability to use the hands, over time, during the
90s and again in the early 2000s, these issues appear
to retreat with a 05/28/03 C-spine MRI. . . . It is not
clear to me how these findings correlate with Ms.
Williams’ complaints on exam. It does not appear
that any of her providers really lined the clinical pic-
ture up well.

Dr. Thomas issued a report on September 22, 2005, agreeing
with MetLife’s determination that the medical information in
Williams’ file did not show that Williams was unable to work
after August 9, 2005. Similarly, Dr. Becker concluded on
6 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
September 19, 2005 that from a psychiatric perspective, the
information in Williams’ file did not support an inability to
perform her job duties after August 9, 2005.

In October 2005, after Dr. Thomas and Dr. Becker con-
cluded that Williams’ file did not substantiate her asserted
inability to function at work, MetLife upheld its decision ter-
minating Williams’ long-term disability benefits. In its letter
to Williams informing her of this decision, MetLife stated that
the information in her claim file "[did] not support the exis-
tence of a totally disabling condition severe enough to keep
[her] from performing [her] customary occupation as of
August 9, 2005." As evidenced by this letter, MetLife’s
review focused on the medical records relating to Williams’
neck and shoulder trouble, while failing to address in sub-
stance Williams’ well-documented problems with her hands
and wrists.

Although this decision exhausted Williams’ appeal rights
under the plan, MetLife received and reviewed additional
medical information that Williams submitted in the months
that followed. MetLife sent this additional information to Dr.
Thomas, who issued a supplemental report on November 21,
2005 restating his previous conclusion. In his supplemental
report, Dr. Thomas expressly "recognize[d] a number of
upper extremity surgeries being done over time" and noted
Williams’ "complain[ts] of neck pain, hand and wrist numb-
ness." Nevertheless, Dr. Thomas concluded that "[t]he inter-
val records reviewed do not clearly explain physical
impairments/physical findings which would preclude
sedentary-duty work activities or function at a sedentary-duty
level." By letter dated November 29, 2005, MetLife informed
Williams that it was upholding its prior decision to terminate
Williams’ long-term disability benefits.

Williams later submitted additional information to MetLife,
including a December 2005 report from her physician, Dr.
Gary Kaplowitz, in which Dr. Kaplowitz concluded that Wil-
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 7
liams "is significantly disabled," and that "[i]t is impossible
for [Williams] to do any kind of repetitive work with the right
hand." Williams also sent MetLife a September 2005 report
from Dr. Smith. In this report, Dr. Smith stated that Williams
"no longer can deal with computers because of her hand
pain," and concluded that Williams’ "pain continues to bother
her significantly. She has limited use of the hands. She is not
able to return back to her prior occupation as a customer ser-
vice rep [sic] at all. Hence, she is totally disabled from her
prior occupation."2

MetLife again sent these additional medical records to Dr.
Thomas, who issued a report on January 10, 2006 restating his
prior conclusion that Williams’ medical records did not sub-
stantiate an inability to work after August 9, 2005. In this
report, Dr. Thomas dismissed Dr. Smith’s September 2005
report, finding it "without significant objective findings pre-
cluding sedentary duty function ability." Dr. Thomas also
summarily dismissed Dr. Kaplowitz’s December 2005 report,
which concluded that Williams was significantly disabled and
unable to return to work. Based on Dr. Thomas’ conclusions,
MetLife informed Williams by letter dated January 24, 2006
that MetLife was again upholding its decision to terminate
Williams’ long-term disability benefits.

Williams submitted further medical information to MetLife
in May 2006. MetLife reviewed this additional information
but again informed Williams, by letter dated September 19,
2006, that MetLife’s decision to terminate Williams’ long-
term disability benefits was sustained.

After receiving this letter from MetLife, Williams filed the
present lawsuit against MetLife in the Eastern District of
2
Dr. Smith concluded previously in March 2005 that Williams was not
able to return to her work as a customer services representative, due in part
to Williams’ medical issues with her hands. This information was included
with MetLife’s previous reviews of Williams’ medical file.
8 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
North Carolina. Thereafter, Williams and MetLife each filed
motions for summary judgment. Upon its review of the
administrative record, the district court, in a published opin-
ion, entered final judgment granting Williams’ motion and
denying MetLife’s motion. Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,
632 F. Supp. 2d 525 (E.D.N.C. 2008).

In its opinion, the district court noted that MetLife had a
conflict of interest with regard to the plan because MetLife
served in the dual role of evaluating claims for benefits and
paying those claims. Based on this "structural" conflict, the
district court applied the "modified abuse-of-discretion" stan-
dard that was applicable in this Circuit at the time of the dis-
trict court’s order. Referencing this standard, the district court
stated,

In assessing the reasonableness of MetLife’s deci-
sion, the court requires that MetLife’s decision be
more objectively reasonable and supported by more
substantial evidence (as compared to when no con-
flict of interest exists). . . .

Id. at 539 (emphasis added).

The district court held in Williams’ favor because
MetLife’s analysis did not adequately account for the medical
evidence regarding Williams’ inability to use her hands in
performing her occupation as a customer service clerk. Thus,
according to the district court, MetLife’s decision was not rea-
sonable and was not supported by substantial evidence.

The district court directed MetLife to award Williams long-
term disability benefits for the period between April 7, 2003
and April 6, 2006, and directed that MetLife determine Wil-
liams’ eligibility for long-term disability benefits beginning
from April 7, 2006 to the present. The district court also
invited Williams to submit a request for attorneys’ fees and
costs, which she did. After receiving briefing by the parties,
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 9
the district court awarded Williams attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $18,240.00 and $350.00 in costs. MetLife timely
appealed the district court’s order granting Williams’ sum-
mary judgment motion and the court’s order awarding attor-
neys’ fees and costs.

II.

A.

In an appeal under ERISA, we review a district court’s
decision de novo, employing the same standards governing
the district court’s review of the plan administrator’s decision.
Champion v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 550 F.3d 353, 360
(4th Cir. 2008). When, as here, an ERISA benefit plan vests
with the plan administrator the discretionary authority to
make eligibility determinations for beneficiaries, a reviewing
court evaluates the plan administrator’s decision for abuse of
discretion. Id. at 359; Ellis v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d
228, 232 (4th Cir. 1997).

Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we will not disturb
a plan administrator’s decision if the decision is reasonable,
even if we would have come to a contrary conclusion inde-
pendently. Ellis, 126 F.3d at 232. Thus, we may not substitute
our own judgment in place of the judgment of the plan admin-
istrator. See Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 761 F.2d 1003, 1008
(4th Cir. 1985). To be held reasonable, the administrator’s
decision must result from a "deliberate, principled reasoning
process" and be supported by substantial evidence. Guthrie v.
Nat’l Rural Elec. Coop. Assoc. Long-term Disability Plan,
509 F.3d 644, 651 (4th Cir. 2007); Brogan v. Holland, 105
F.3d 158, 161 (4th Cir. 1997).

In our decision in Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Asso-
ciates Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d 335 (4th Cir. 2000),
we set forth eight nonexclusive factors that courts should con-
10 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
sider in reviewing the reasonableness of a plan administrator’s
decision. These factors include:

(1) the language of the plan;

(2) the purposes and goals of the plan;

(3) the adequacy of the materials considered to make
the decision and the degree to which they support it;

(4) whether the fiduciary’s interpretation was consis-
tent with other provisions in the plan and with earlier
interpretations of the plan;

(5) whether the decisionmaking process was rea-
soned and principled;

(6) whether the decision was consistent with the pro-
cedural and substantive requirements of ERISA;

(7) any external standard relevant to the exercise of
discretion; and

(8) the fiduciary’s motives and any conflict of inter-
est it may have.

Id. at 342-43. The above factors continue to guide our abuse-
of-discretion review under ERISA. See Carden v. Aetna Life
Ins. Co., 559 F.3d 256, 261 (4th Cir. 2009); Champion, 550
F.3d at 359.

Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008),
courts in this Circuit reviewing a plan administrator’s decision
applied a "modified abuse-of-discretion" standard. See Ellis,
126 F.3d at 233. Under this prior standard, if a plan adminis-
trator had a conflict of interest because the administrator both
determined benefit eligibility and paid claims, the administra-
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 11
tor’s decision was given less deference than if the administra-
tor had no conflict of this nature. In applying that prior
standard, we noted that such a conflict would modify the
abuse-of-discretion standard according to a "sliding scale,"
requiring greater objective reasonableness and more substan-
tial evidence in support of a decision depending on the degree
of the administrator’s financial incentive to benefit itself by
reaching a certain outcome. See id.; see also, e.g., Guthrie,
509 F.3d at 649-52 (applying "sliding scale" modified abuse-
of-discretion analysis); Blackshear v. Reliance Standard Life
Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 634, 639 (4th Cir. 2007) (same); Stup v.
UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 390 F.3d 301, 307-11 (4th Cir.
2004) (same).

This line of cases, however, predated Glenn, in which the
Supreme Court established the framework of review for
ERISA cases in which a plan administrator has a structural
conflict of interest. Addressing the different standards of
review employed by some of the circuit courts, the Supreme
Court clarified that the presence of a plan administrator’s con-
flict of interest did not alter the abuse-of-discretion standard
of review. Instead, the Court explained, the presence of such
a conflict is "but one factor among many that a reviewing
judge must take into account." 554 U.S. at ___; 128 S. Ct. at
2351. In particular, the Supreme Court counseled that the con-
flict of interest should not itself lead to "special burden-of-
proof rules, or other special procedural or evidentiary rules."
Id.

Although the district court in the present case was aware of
the Supreme Court’s holding in Glenn, the district court did
not have the benefit of our opinion in Champion, decided two
weeks after the district court entered its order. In Champion,
we first substantively addressed the impact of Glenn on our
prior "modified abuse-of-discretion" standard. We observed
that the decision in Glenn required a change in our prior stan-
dard for reviewing discretionary decisions made by ERISA
12 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
administrators operating under a structural conflict of interest.
Champion, 550 F.3d at 358-59.

We concluded that, based on the holding in Glenn, our
prior modified abuse-of-discretion standard no longer was
applicable. Id. at 359. We held that, instead, courts should
view any such conflict of interest as but one factor among the
many identified in Booth for reviewing the reasonableness of
a plan administrator’s discretionary decision. Id. at 359. We
explained that "courts are to apply simply the abuse-of-
discretion standard for reviewing discretionary determinations
by [the] administrator, even if the administrator operated
under a conflict of interest." Id. With this framework in mind,
we address the arguments presented in this appeal.

B.

MetLife argues that the district court applied an incorrect
legal standard, and that application of the correct standard
mandates the conclusion that MetLife did not abuse its discre-
tion in terminating Williams’ long-term disability benefits.
We disagree with the conclusion advanced by MetLife.

After citing the decision in Glenn, the district court stated
that the effect of MetLife’s conflict was reduced because
MetLife sought review of its decision by two physician-
consultants and initially awarded Williams long-term disabil-
ity benefits through August 2005. Nevertheless, the district
court stated that it was applying the modified abuse-of-
discretion standard, and announced that because of the con-
flict of interest present in this case, MetLife’s decision to ter-
minate Williams’ benefits must be "more objectively
reasonable and supported by more substantial evidence" than
if there were no conflict. Williams, 632 F. Supp. 2d at 539
(emphasis added).

Because the district court applied the modified abuse-of-
discretion standard that we abrogated in Champion, as
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 13
required by the decision in Glenn, we first must decide
whether we should reach the merits of MetLife’s appeal or
instead remand the case to the district court for application of
the correct legal standard. We conclude that a remand is not
necessary in this case.

In the context of ERISA, this Court and the district court
each conduct the same de novo review to determine whether
a plan administrator abused its discretion. See Champion, 550
F.3d at 360. Both this Court and the district court conduct
these respective reviews based solely on the existing adminis-
trative record, rather than on any testimony or other additional
evidence obtained outside the administrative record. Thus, we
are equally situated to the district court in our ability to exam-
ine the administrative record and to apply the facts to the
proper legal standard.3

Our decision to proceed directly to review de novo the
record before us is further supported by our decisions after
Champion in which we considered appeals based on ERISA.
Since the decision in Champion, in the five ERISA cases that
have come before us in which the district court applied the
pre-Champion standard, we have reached the merits of each
such case rather than remanding the matter to the district
court. See Carden, 559 F.3d at 261-63 (affirming district court
order upholding plan administrator’s offset of workers com-
pensation benefits); Vaughan v. Celanese Americas Corp.,
339 F. App’x 320 (4th Cir. July 30, 2009) (unpublished)
(affirming district court decision upholding plan administra-
tor’s denial of separation pay benefits); Spry v. Eaton Corp.
Long Term Disability Plan, 326 F. App’x 674 (4th Cir. June
2, 2009) (unpublished) (reversing district court decision in
favor of beneficiary); Lance v. Ret. Plan of Int’l Paper Co.,
331 F. App’x 251 (4th Cir. May 29, 2009) (unpublished)
(affirming district court decision upholding plan administra-
3
We also note that neither party asks us to remand this case to the dis-
trict court for application of the correct legal standard.
14 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
tor’s denial of benefits); White v. Eaton Corp. Short Term
Disability Plan, 308 F. App’x 713 (4th Cir. Jan. 21 2009)
(unpublished) (affirming district court decision in favor of bene-
ficiary).4 We also note that a review of ERISA cases from our
sister circuits shows that other courts of appeal often have
reached the merits of cases in which a district court initially
applied a pre-Glenn standard.5

C.

We turn now to apply the Champion standard to the facts
of this case, employing the factors set forth in Booth. We hold
that because MetLife serves in the dual role of evaluating
claims for benefits and of paying benefit claims, MetLife has
a structural conflict of interest. See Glenn, 554 U.S. at ___;
128 S.Ct. at 2348. We observe, however, that MetLife’s struc-
tural conflict of interest should not have a significant role in
4
Our decision to apply the correct legal standard instead of remanding
the case is also consistent with Glenn, in which the Supreme Court
affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s decision in favor of a benefit plan participant
(the plaintiff), over Justice Kennedy’s separate opinion urging the Court
to remand the case for application of the clarified standard. See 554 U.S.
at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2355-56. Further, our decision is consistent with
Champion, in which this Court applied the new standard in affirming the
district court’s decision.
5
See, e.g., McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.
2008); Estate of Schwing v. Lilly Health Plan, 562 F.3d 522 (3d Cir.
2009); Holland v. Int’l Paper Co. Ret. Plan, 576 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2009);
Chronister v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 563 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2009);
Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623 (9th Cir.
2009); Holcomb v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 578 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir.
2009); Doyle v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1352 (11th
Cir. 2008). We observe, however, that a few decisions from our sister cir-
cuits have remanded reviews under ERISA to the district court for applica-
tion of the post-Glenn legal standard. See, e.g., Denmark v. Liberty Life
Assurance Co. of Boston, 566 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009); Raybourne v. Cigna
Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 576 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Mountaire
Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 542 F.3d 234 (8th Cir. 2008); Burke v.
Pitney Bowes Inc. Long-Term Disability Plan, 544 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir.
2008).
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 15
the analysis. The district court correctly concluded that
MetLife’s initial finding of disability, its payment of long-
term disability benefits for almost two years, and its referral
of its termination decision to two independent doctors, sug-
gests that MetLife was not inherently biased in making its
decision.

Nevertheless, we agree with Williams that MetLife’s deci-
sion is not supported by substantial evidence. Under the terms
of the Plan, a person is "disabled" and eligible for long-term
disability benefits if she is unable to earn a certain percentage
of her pre-disability earnings due to an "inability to perform
all of the duties of [her] Customary Occupation." Williams’
"[c]ustomary [o]ccupation" is as a customer service clerk, a
position that requires frequent typing on a computer, which in
turn requires Williams to make frequent use of her hands and
wrists.

Williams’ claims file contained overwhelming evidence
reflecting significant problems with her hands and wrists,
including tendonitis, carpel tunnel syndrome, and trigger fin-
ger disorder. We again note that Williams has had nine medi-
cal procedures to treat these conditions. Despite these
numerous procedures, the described hand and wrist impair-
ments have continued to cause Williams pain and have
become a significant impediment to Williams’ ability to type
on a computer.

The district court characterized the record reflecting Wil-
liams’ issues with her hands and wrists as "credible, objective
medical evidence." 632 F. Supp. 2d at 540. We agree with this
conclusion. Indeed, Williams’ physicians repeatedly con-
cluded that Williams should not return to work, or required a
modification of job duties, due in part to the pain in her hands
and her inability to type on a computer. MetLife itself noted
in December 2003 that Williams "is unable to turn her head
and use her hands for extend[ed] periods of time due to the
pain."
16 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
Although Williams’ neck and shoulder pain showed signs
of improvement, the evidence in the administrative record
does not show that Williams’ medical issues with her hands
and wrists subsided. Nonetheless, following Williams’ April
2005 appointment with Dr. Smith, in which Williams reported
generally that her pain recently had improved, MetLife termi-
nated Williams’ long-term disability benefits in August 2005.
As noted, this termination followed several occasions, as
recently as five months prior, in which MetLife reviewed and
approved Williams’ long-term disability benefits. The report
from Williams’ April 2005 doctor’s visit was the only new
information since MetLife’s most recent approval of Wil-
liams’ long-term disability benefits that MetLife could have
considered in deciding abruptly to terminate those benefits.

After reviewing the evidence in the administrative record,
we conclude that even under the deferential standard of
review prescribed by Glenn and Champion, MetLife’s ratio-
nale in terminating Williams’ benefits was not reasoned and
principled, and was not supported by substantial evidence.
MetLife’s initial termination letter simply does not address
evidence from Williams’ treating physicians concerning Wil-
liams’ inability to use her hands to conduct the typing and
other activities required by her customary occupation. We
emphasize that Dr. Smith’s April 2005 report, on which
MetLife initially relied in terminating Williams’ benefits,
does not explicitly address Williams’ ability to use her hands,
nor does that report conclude that Williams could return to
work.

Moreover, we agree with the district court that Dr. Thomas
concluded inaccurately that Williams’ inability to use her
hands "appear[s] to retreat with a 5/28/03 [C]-spine MRI."
The record evidences numerous instances in which Williams
experienced pain and difficulty in attempting to use her hands
after May 2003. Additionally, we conclude that Dr. Thomas’
statement regarding whether Williams’ "providers really lined
the clinical picture up well," is vague and fails to provide any
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 17
information of substance regarding Williams’ documented
problems with her hands and wrists.

In the face of overwhelming evidence concerning Wil-
liams’ continued pain and difficulty in attempting to use her
hands and wrists, MetLife relied on a scintilla of evidence that
did not directly address these problems. MetLife appears to
have disregarded, without justification, Williams’ treating
physicians’ conclusions regarding her hand and wrist pain and
its effect on her ability to type throughout the day. As the
Supreme Court has held, "[p]lan administrators, of course,
may not arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimant’s reliable evi-
dence, including the opinions of a treating physician." Black
& Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834 (2003).
For these reasons, we agree with the district court that
MetLife’s decision to terminate Williams’ long-term disabil-
ity benefits for the applicable period was an abuse of discre-
tion.

III.

A.

MetLife also appeals from the district court’s order award-
ing Williams attorneys’ fees of $18,240, and costs in the
amount of $350.00. In an ERISA action, a district court may,
in its discretion, award costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to
either party under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), so long as that
party has achieved "‘some degree of success on the merits.’"
Hardt v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., No. 09-448, ___ U.S.
___, ___ S.Ct. ___, slip op. at 1, 12 (May 24, 2010) (quoting
Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 694 (1983)).

We review a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to a
qualifying litigant to determine whether the court has abused
its discretion. Mid Atl. Med. Servs., LLC v. Sereboff, 407 F.3d
212, 221 (4th Cir. 2005). The district court’s factual findings
in support of such an award are reviewed for clear error. Car-
18 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
olina Care Plan, Inc. v. McKenzie, 467 F.3d 383, 390 (4th
Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by Champion, 550
F.3d 353; Hyatt v. Shalala, 6 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 1993).

We observe that the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Hardt after we heard oral argument on the present appeal. We
conclude that the holding in Hardt requires us to change our
analytical approach to the review of an attorneys’ fees award
in an ERISA case.

Before the decision in Hardt, the rule in this Circuit was
that only a "prevailing party" was eligible for an award of
attorneys’ fees in an action under ERISA. See Martin v. Blue
Cross & Blue Shield of Va., Inc., 115 F.3d 1201, 1210 (4th
Cir. 1997). In Hardt, the Supreme Court expressly rejected
our "prevailing party" requirement. ___ U.S. at ___, slip. op.
at 9. The Supreme Court held that a party is eligible for an
attorneys’ fees award in an ERISA case if the party has
achieved "some degree of success on the merits." ___ U.S. at
___, slip. op. at 1, 12. Thus, under the Supreme Court’s deci-
sion in Hardt, the category of litigants eligible for an attor-
neys’ fees award in an ERISA action is broader than under
our prior standard.

The first step of our analysis, therefore, requires us to con-
sider whether Williams achieved "some degree of success on
the merits" in the district court, thereby making her eligible
for an award of attorneys’ fees. We have no difficulty in con-
cluding that Williams did show "some degree of success on
the merits." In fact, the degree of her success was very high,
as shown by the district court’s grant of Williams’ motion for
summary judgment and the district court’s holding that Wil-
liams was entitled to long-term disability benefits. Therefore,
we conclude that Williams was eligible for an award of attor-
neys’ fees under the Hardt standard.

B.

Because Williams was eligible for an award of attorneys’
fees under the decision in Hardt, we proceed to the second
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 19
step of our analysis, in which we determine whether the dis-
trict court properly exercised its discretion in holding that
Williams should be awarded attorneys’ fees. We note at the
outset that even a successful party such as Williams does not
enjoy a presumption in favor of an attorneys’ fees award. See
Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 987 F.2d 1017, 1029
(4th Cir. 1993) (en banc).

We identified five factors in Quesinberry that a district
court should consider in informing its exercise of discretion
when ruling on a motion for attorneys’ fees in an ERISA case.
Id. at 1029. As we stated in Quesinberry, these factors
include:

(1) degree of opposing parties’ culpability or bad
faith;

(2) ability of opposing parties to satisfy an award of
attorneys’ fees;

(3) whether an award of attorneys’ fees against the
opposing parties would deter other persons acting
under similar circumstances;

(4) whether the parties requesting attorneys’ fees
sought to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of
an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal ques-
tion regarding ERISA itself; and

(5) the relative merits of the parties’ positions.

987 F.2d at 1029. We cautioned that this five-factor approach
is not a "rigid test," but instead provides "general guidelines."
Id.

We observe that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardt
does not preclude our continued use of the five-factor
approach that we established in Quesinberry. The Supreme
20 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
Court simply cautioned against employing these five factors
in the first step of the analysis, namely, in determining
whether a party has satisfied the requirement of achieving
"some degree of success on the merits." Hardt, ___ U.S. at
___ (slip. op. at 11). However, with regard to the second step
of the analysis involving review of a district court’s discre-
tionary decision whether to award attorneys’ fees, the Court
stated that "[w]e do not foreclose the possibility that once a
claimant has satisfied this requirement, and thus becomes eli-
gible for a fees award under § 1132(g)(1), a court may con-
sider the five factors adopted by the Court of Appeals" in
Quesinberry in deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees.
Hardt, ___ U.S. at ___, slip. op. at 12 n.8. Therefore, we con-
clude that once a court in this Circuit determines that a litigant
in an ERISA case has achieved "some degree of success on
the merits," the court should continue to apply the general
guidelines that we identified in Quesinberry when exercising
its discretion to award attorneys’ fees to an eligible party.

In this case, the district court applied the Quesinberry fac-
tors and concluded that MetLife’s culpability in terminating
Williams’ benefits weighed in favor of granting Williams’
request for attorneys’ fees. The district court observed that
MetLife terminated Williams’ long-term disability benefits
based on a single piece of evidence after having approved
long-term disability benefits three times previously. The dis-
trict court also found that MetLife failed to consider all the
documented evidence concerning Williams’ disability and
improperly relied on Dr. Thomas’ "flawed" reports. Although
the district court did not expressly state that MetLife’s actions
amounted to "bad faith," the court characterized MetLife as
having been "more than merely negligent."

The district court further found that three of the other four
Quesinberry factors, including the parties’ ability to satisfy an
award of fees, whether an award of attorneys’ fees would
deter other persons acting under similar circumstances, and
the relative merits of the parties’ positions, supported such an
 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE 21
award. After reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments,
we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in mak-
ing these factual findings, nor did the court’s evaluation of
these findings under the Quesinberry factors and its award of
attorneys’ fees constitute an abuse of discretion.6

Our conclusion is not altered by MetLife’s additional argu-
ment that the district court erred by considering whether Wil-
liams could pay her attorney under the "ability to pay" factor
of Quesinberry, rather than solely on whether MetLife could
satisfy an award of attorneys’ fees. This argument is not per-
suasive.

First, the district court did not rely strongly on Williams’
inability to pay, and MetLife’s argument to the contrary is not
supported by the record. Second, as noted previously, the
approach we adopted in Quesinberry provides "general guide-
lines" rather than a "rigid test." See 987 F.2d at 1029.

Finally, in exercising its discretion under the statute, the
district court was entitled to consider the remedial purposes of
ERISA to protect employee rights and secure effective access
to federal courts. See Quesinberry, 987 F.2d at 1030 (noting
district courts should consider remedial purposes of ERISA in
exercising discretion to award attorneys’ fees); Denzler v.
Questech, Inc., 80 F.3d 97, 104 (4th Cir. 1996) (describing
remedial purposes of ERISA). The district court’s decision to
consider Williams’ ability to pay attorneys’ fees in the court’s
analysis under Quesinberry comports with these remedial pur-
poses. We therefore conclude that a plaintiff’s ability to pay
attorneys’ fees may be considered by the district court in its
exercise of its discretion under Quesinberry, and that the dis-
trict court did not err or abuse its discretion in awarding attor-
neys’ fees to Williams.
6
MetLife does not argue on appeal that the district court erred in calcu-
lating the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to Williams.
22 WILLIAMS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
C.

We reach the same conclusion regarding the district court’s
decision to award costs to Williams.7 Under Rule 54(d)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, costs "should be
allowed to the prevailing party" unless a federal statute pro-
vides otherwise. Thus, we have stated that Rule 54 gives rise
to a presumption in favor of an award of costs to the prevail-
ing party. Teague v. Baker, 35 F.3d 978, 996 (4th Cir. 1994).
Here, Williams was the "prevailing party." Further, ERISA
expressly permits a district court to award costs in the court’s
discretion, but the statute does not alter the general rule in
favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties such as Williams.
See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). Thus, Williams is entitled to a
presumption in favor of costs.
With this presumption in mind, we review a district court’s
award of costs for abuse of discretion. Oak Hall Cap & Gown
Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d 291, 296
(4th Cir. 1990). In light of our conclusion regarding the dis-
trict court’s award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to Williams,
we easily conclude that the district court did not abuse its dis-
cretion in awarding costs to Williams.
IV.
Although the district court applied a legal standard that this
Court later abrogated in Champion, we agree with the district
court’s ultimate conclusion that MetLife abused its discretion
by terminating Williams’ long-term disability benefits. We
also uphold the district court’s order awarding Williams attor-
neys’ fees and costs. The judgment of the district court is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED
7
We observe that MetLife’s argument on appeal does not differentiate
between the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and the court’s award
of costs.