Black V Unum Life Insurance Company

Case: 25-10140 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2025

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 25-10140
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 24, 2025
Lyle W. Cayce
Catherine A. Black, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Unum Life Insurance Company of America,

Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:22-CV-2116
______________________________

Before Davis, Smith, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Plaintiff-Appellant Catherine A. Black challenges the termination of
her long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan.
Defendant-Appellee Unum Life Insurance Company of America, the plan’s
administrator, denied continuation of her benefits after reviewing her

_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 25-10140 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2025

No. 25-10140

updated medical records. We agree with the district court that Unum’s
decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion and therefore AFFIRM.
I.
In 2012, Black began working as operations support administrative
assistant for Paycom Payroll, LLC. As an employee, she participated in
Paycom’s group insurance plan, which was governed by ERISA and
administered by Unum. Under the policy, a plan participant qualifies for
long-term disability benefits for twenty-four months if Unum determines that
sickness or injury: (1) limits her from performing her “regular occupation”
and (2) results in a loss of at least 20% of her monthly earnings. After twenty-
four months, coverage extends only to those who cannot perform “any
gainful occupation for which [they] are reasonably fitted by education,
training or experience” due to the same sickness or injury.
Black struggled with poor health in 2014. She left her job to undergo
gallbladder surgery in August. A couple months later, Black attempted to
return to work but suffered from vertigo too much to stay. In December, she
had sinus surgery. On January 7, 2015, Unum approved Black’s claim for
long-term disability benefits.
After six years of paying Black those benefits, Unum received
information in 2021 that led to the denial of her continued coverage. In June
of that year and following spinal surgery, Black submitted a Disability Status
Update to Unum in which she identified three treating healthcare
professionals: Julie Hamilton, PA-C, her primary-care provider; Nnamdi
Dike, D.O., her neurologist; and Scott Blumenthal, M.D., her spine surgeon.
In August, Unum followed up with Black’s listed providers and asked
them whether, in their medical judgment, Black could return to sedentary
work. Hamilton and Dr. Dike said yes. Dr. Blumenthal did not respond.
Consistent with those opinions, Unum decided that Black lacked support to

2
Case: 25-10140 Document: 44-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/24/2025

No. 25-10140

show that she was limited from performing sedentary work. Because such
disability was a condition to continued coverage, Unum notified Black on
September 16, 2021 that it was terminating her benefits.
One month later, Black met with a vascular surgeon, Gregory Pearl,
M.D., who diagnosed her with thoracic outlet syndrome. In February 2022,
Dr. Pearl performed a right-thoracic-outlet decompression on Black in an
effort to treat her enduring right-arm pain. And one month after surgery,
Black submitted medical records from her visits with Dr. Pearl as part of an
administrative appeal of Unum’s termination decision. That appeal was
denied initially and on reconsideration.
On September 22, 2022, Black filed this suit against Unum,
challenging the termination of her long-term disability benefits. On cross
motions for summary-judgment, the district court remanded the proceedings
for Unum to enlist a qualified healthcare professional (in lieu of Amanda
Abbott, a registered nurse and Unum employee) to review Black’s file. Unum
engaged Arlen Green, D.O., a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist,
and Eric Wellons, M.D., a vascular surgeon, for the last chapter in the review
process. 1 Both Dr. Green and Dr. Wellons opined that Black’s medical
records did not support the conclusion that Black could not perform
sedentary work. So, Unum upheld its decision denying Black’s claim for
continued benefits.
With the final administrative denial, the case returned to the district
court. After a thorough review of the medical evidence and administrative
record, the district court entered judgment in favor of Unum. Black timely
appealed.

_____________________
1
When Black disputed Dr. Green’s qualifications to opine on thoracic outlet
syndrome, Unum decided to also consult Dr. Wellons.

3
Case: 25-10140 Document: 44-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/24/2025

No. 25-10140

II.
The focus of Black’s appeal is Dr. Pearl’s operative report. Relying on
it, she highlights several purported deficiencies in Unum’s decision to
discontinue coverage—none of which we find convincing under the
governing abuse-of-discretion standard. 2
We affirm a plan administrator’s decision so long as it “fall[s]
somewhere on a continuum of reasonableness—even if on the low end.” 3 To
be reasonable, a decision must be supported by substantial evidence. 4
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and
is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” 5
Unum denied continuing coverage to Black for lack of “available
medical information” showing that she was “limited . . . from performing the
demands of her regular occupation.” Its decision was supported by reports
from at least four healthcare professionals. As the district court recognized,
two of Black’s providers, “Dr. Dike and Hamilton, cleared her for sedentary
work . . . [and] nothing in their reports suggest[s] Black could not perform
the duties of gainful occupation consistent with her experience, training, and

_____________________
2
Where, as here, “an ERISA plan lawfully delegates discretionary authority to
the plan administrator, a court reviewing the denial of a claim is limited to assessing
whether the administrator abused that discretion.” Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of
Tex., Inc., 884 F.3d 246, 247 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc). A district court’s conclusion that a
plan administrator did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits is reviewed de novo.
Pickrom v. Belger Cartage Serv., Inc., 57 F.3d 468, 471 (5th Cir. 1995).
3
Foster v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 920 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 2019) (alteration in
original) (quoting Holland v. Int’l Paper Co. Ret. Plan, 576 F.3d 240, 247 (5th Cir. 2009)).
4
See, e.g., id.
5
Id. (quoting Anderson v. Cytec Indus., Inc., 619 F.3d 505, 512 (5th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam)).

4
Case: 25-10140 Document: 44-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/24/2025

No. 25-10140

education.” And Unum-retained physician Dr. Wellons—who, notably,
practices in the same specialty as Dr. Pearl—concluded that “there [we]re
no clinical, exam or diagnostic findings during the period under review that
would support [restrictions or limitations] precluding performance of the
outlined occupational demands.” Thus, Unum’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence.
Black, on the other hand, posits that Dr. Pearl’s operative report
constitutes reliable evidence that she endured “severe daily disabling” pain.
But as the district court noted, “Even Dr. Pearl, on whose reports Black
heavily relies, wrote in December 2021 . . . that Black reported ‘excellent
temporary relief of her longstanding . . . symptoms’ and that ‘virtually all of
her pain was alleviated.’” Her argument misunderstands Unum’s burden on
abuse-of-discretion review: “Even if an ERISA plaintiff ‘support[s] his
claim with substantial evidence, or even with a preponderance,’ he will not
prevail for that reason. Rather, it is the plan administrator’s decision that
must be supported by substantial evidence[.]” 6 This court has emphasized
that “the job of weighing valid, conflicting professional medical opinions is
not the job of the courts; that job has been given to the administrators of
ERISA plans.” 7
For these reasons and those expressed in the district court’s careful
December 2, 2024, Memorandum Opinion and Order, we AFFIRM the
district court’s judgment.

_____________________
6
Id. (citation omitted) (quoting Ellis v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Bos., 394 F.3d
262, 273 (5th Cir. 2004)).
7
Holland, 576 F.3d at 250 (quoting Corry v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Bos., 499
F.3d 389, 401 (5th Cir. 2007)).