Howard v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance (929 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 2013)

ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.

This case, brought pursuant to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), involves a plan administrator’s termination of a plan claimant’s long term disability benefits. It is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Specifically pending are Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Company’s (“Hartford”) Dispositive Motion For Summary Judgment With Statement Of Undisputed Material Facts And Memorandum Of Law in Support Thereof (Doc. 208; Hartford Motion for Summary Judgment), and Plaintiffs [Kimberly Howard] Response In Opposition to Defendant’s Dis-positive Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 222; Howard Response); and Plaintiffs Dispositive Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 219; Howard Motion for Summary Judgment), which is opposed by Hartford in Defendant’s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs Dispositive Motion For Summary Judgment. (Doc. 223; Hartford Response). Additionally pending are Plaintiffs Motion In Li-mine To Exclude Extra Record Evidence Attacking The Character Of Plaintiffs Witness, Sandra Carter, In Dispositive Motion Briefings (Doc. 211; Howard Motion in Limine), to which Hartford responded in Defendant’s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs “Motion In Limine” (Doc. 220; Hartford Response to Motion In Limine); as well as Defendant’s Motion To Strike Exhibits To Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment, With Memorandum Of Law In Support Thereof (Doc. 221; Hartford Motion in Limine), to which Howard has filed a Response In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion To Strike (Doc. 224; Howard Response to Motion in Limine), and Hartford has filed a court-authorized Reply. (Doc. 228; Hartford Reply). The motions are ripe for review.

On March 3, 2010, Plaintiff Kimberly Howard (“Howard” or “Plaintiff’) filed this action against Hartford, pursuant to Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), to recover benefits, to enforce rights under her employment benefits plan, and to clarify her rights under the plan. (Doc. 1; Complaint). Hartford originally approved Howard’s application for long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits commencing November 4, 2005. Subsequently, based upon continuing evaluations of updated medical information, surveillance, and a records review by two physicians and a neuro-psychologist, Hartford determined that Howard was no longer qualified for LTD benefits, and discontinued her benefits, as of November 15, 2006. Howard administratively appealed that decision, and Hartford affirmed its decision. The instant suit challenges Hartford’s decision on the administrative appeal.

I. Facts

A. The Plan

In April of 2005, Plaintiff worked for Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (“Fidelity”), where she held the position of Business Strategy Manager I. Complaint ¶¶5, 12, 13; (Doc. 59; Answer ¶¶5, 12, 13; Doc. 209; Administrative Record (“AR”) at H429). As a Business Strategy Manager I, Howard was responsible for working with product strategy managers to develop strategic visions for Fidelity’s mortgage products; assisting in the development of client communications and presentations; assisting with maintaining product requirements and project activities; developing and writing business cases; researching competitive materials and providing quarterly company updates; and working with analysts to ensure product strategies were communicated. AR at H429; see also id. at H220-21. According to a Hartford “Physical Demands Analysis Form” completed by Fidelity, Howard’s job as a Business Strategy Manager required sitting for six hours per day, walking or standing for two hours per day, and lifting up to 10 pounds “frequently” and between 10 and 20 pounds “occasionally.” AR at H1107; see also id. at H577-78; H220-21. The position could also entail “climbing some stairs on campus,” handling papers, stooping or crouching to reach lower drawers, and fingering a keyboard. Id. at H578; see also id. H22021. The Department of Labor classified Howard’s occupation as “sedentary.” AR at H426-28, H1332.

During her employment with Fidelity, Howard was a participant in the Fidelity National Financial, Inc. Group Benefit Plan (Doc. 1-1; Plan), which Hartford issued to Fidelity, insured, and underwrote. Complaint ¶ 6; Answer ¶ 6; see also Hartford Motion for Summary Judgment at 4. As such, Hartford both funded and administered the Plan. The Plan provides that Hartford has “full discretion and authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe and interpret all terms and provisions of the [Plan].” Plan at 14. As a Plan participant, Howard would be “entitled to receive disability benefits under the Plan if she meets the definition(s) of disability.” Complaint ¶ 9; Answer ¶ 9; see AR at H470-73. The Plan contains the following definitions:

Disability or Disabled means that during the Elimination Period and for the next 24 months you are prevented by:

1. accidental bodily injury;

2. sickness;

3. Mental Illness;

4. Substance Abuse; or

5. pregnancy,

from performing one or more of the Essential Duties of Your Occupation, and as a result your Current Monthly Earnings are no more than 80% of your Indexed Pre-disability Earnings.

After that, you must be so prevented from performing one or more of the Essential Duties of Any Occupation.

Your Occupation ... means your occupation as it is recognized in the general workplace. Your Occupation does not mean the specific job you are performing for a specific employer or at a specific location.

Any Occupation means an occupation for which you are qualified by education, training, or experience, and that has an earnings potential greater than an amount equal to the lesser of the product of your Indexed Pre-disability Earnings and the Benefit Percentage and the Maximum Monthly Benefit shown in the Schedule of Insurance....

Essential Duty means a duty that:

1. is substantial, not incidental;

2. is fundamental or inherent to the occupation; and

3. can not be reasonably omitted or changed.

To be at work for the number of hours in your regularly scheduled workweek is also an Essential Duty.

Plan at 15, 17. Thus, pursuant to the provisions of the Plan, for the first 24 months of a claimed disability, eligibility for LTD benefits was conditioned on the claimant’s submission of proof that she was prevented by illness or injury from performing, on a full-time basis, “one or more of the Essential Duties of Your Occupation.”

B. Medical History

On April 2, 2005, Howard’s treating physician, internal medicine specialist Dr. Gary Decker, wrote to Hartford stating that he has been treating Howard for “many years”, and in his opinion “she should qualify for total disability” based upon her “multiple debilities.” AR at H669. Dr. Decker wrote:

Her chief problems over that time have been asthma and an autoimmune disorder. The patient has been diagnosed as having a chronic history of multiple joint pains. The problem has progressed over the past years, to the point that I feel that she is unable to maintain any type of employment. The patient has muscle spasms throughout her body which are debilitating. She is unable to control movements of her hands and legs. She appears fatigued on a chronic basis. It happens even after hours of sleep. She recently has difficulty with sleep. All of these problems have led to a diagnosis of depression also. The patient has trouble concentrating and focusing her thoughts, as well as her short-term memory. She has loss of fine motor control. She has large muscle joint pains with swelling over her joints. She has experienced rashes that have been present intermittently, but are generalized over her torso, arms, extremities, and face. She has frequent headaches, which have not been relieved with any analgesics, and studies that have been done have been unrevealing.

Id. Howard ceased working at Fidelity on April 28, 2005, due to a diagnosis of lupus and fibromyalgia. See AR at H220, H1498.

Dr. Decker reported in a May 3, 2005 Attending Physician’s Statement of Disability that Howard was 5'6" tall and weighed “approximately 323.” AR at H663-64; H1274-75. His “Primary diagnosis” was “Lupus, Fibromyalgia, severe joint pain,” and his “Secondary diagnosis(es)” was “Depression, short-term memory loss, asthma.” Dr. Decker stated that his physical examination of Howard found “decreased ROM [range of motion] all extremities, memory deficit, joint pain.” Id. [He noted that he began treating Howard for these conditions in April, 2002.] Dr. Decker listed Howard’s “Impairment” as follows:

Walking: causes severe joint pain

Sitting: leg pain, numbness

Lifting/carrying: Upper extremity weakness, poor co-ordination

Reaching/working overhead: | ROM of upper extremities, severe joint pain

Pushing: Severe joint pain

Pulling: Severe joint pain

Driving: short term memory loss prevents patient for finding destinations

Keyboard use/repetitive hand motion: Unable to do even simple hand motions such as drying hair, removing bottle tops

Id. However, he indicated Howard had no psychiatric impairment and was “Essentially good functioning in all areas.” Id. Dr. Decker opined that Howard “became unable to work due to this impairment” on April 29, 2005, and that the limitations are “permanent.” Id. A second “Attending Physician’s Statement of Continued Disability” completed by Dr. Decker on May 18, 2005, listed his primary diagnosis as Lupus, and secondary diagnosis as Fibromyalgia. He also noted “Severe Joint Pain, Asthma and Depression.” H654-55. The Attending Physician’s Statement lists her upcoming doctor or testing appointments, and her “Treatment Plan” as “Medications and Specialists.” Id. at H655. Dr. Decker stated:

Patient suffers from severe, chronic multiple joint pains and stiffness. Due to hip and knee pain, patient has difficulty standing or walking for more than a few minutes at a time. Sitting for longer than an hour causes severe pain, and stiffness in hips, upper and lower back. Patient suffers from chronic numbness, weakness and swelling in hands, fingers, feet, and legs. Patient experiences dizziness when standing and/or walking, in addition to chronic fatigue and trouble sleeping.

Id. According to Dr. Decker, specific limitations precluding Howard from performing the functions of her job were:

• Unable to manage multiple tasks due to short term memory problems and chronic fatigue

• Difficulty standing and sitting for extended periods of time

• Chronic pain in back (upper/lower), numbness, pain and swelling in legs, hands, fingers, feet and major joints

• Loss of fine motor skills

• Difficulty concentrating

• Unable to lift or carry more than 5 pounds

Id. at H655. He stated that “Patient is totally and permanently disabled.” Id. at H654.

Based upon the information submitted, Hartford approved Howard’s claim for Short Term Disability (“STD”) benefits on May 20, 2005, retroactive to the beginning of the month. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the STD benefits would expire six months later on November 3, 2005. See id. at H470, H475, H1280; see also Complaint ¶ 14; Answer ¶ 14.

On June 17, 2005, a Hartford claim examiner noted that, based upon the medical records received, Howard’s “[cjlaim has high LTD potential.” AR at H1283. Hartford later directed some follow-up questions to Dr. Decker on July 27, 2005, regarding Howard’s health and limitations. Id. at H572 (“07/27/05 Questionnaire”). In the 07/27/05 Questionnaire, Hartford asked:

2. What are the current clinical findings on examination that support [Howard’s] subjective statements that she is unable to work?

Dr. Decker responded:

Muscle spasms which render her unable to control hand and leg movement. Severe joint pain. Short term memory loss. Severe depression resulting in loss of concentration. Frequent headaches.

Id. Dr. Decker also acknowledged that “per Rheumatology,” lab work fails to support a diagnosis of lupus. Id. at H572. Nevertheless, he said that Howard’s fibromyalgia prohibits her from working in sedentary to light positions because of “Severe joint pain” in her hips and hands, “short term memory loss and loss of concentration,” and “lower extremity swelling.” He explained that he determined Howard’s restrictions through “observation.” Id.

During this time frame, Howard was also being examined by rheumatologist Dr. Reza M. Taba. AR at H391-395. On August 4, 2005, Dr. Taba reported that Howard presented complaining of aches and pains, difficulty sleeping, and fatigue. He noted that “work up for cardiac status has been negative in the past.” Id. at H391. After examining Howard’s shoulders, elbow, wrists, hands, hip, knees and ankle joints for tenderness and swelling, range of motion, stability, crepitus, warmth, and erythmia, Dr. Taba concluded, “[t]hese joints were found to be without abnormality.” Id. at H391. While he observed that Howard “appears to be in mild pain,” Dr. Taba noted no rash, mouth ulcers, heart problems, abdominal tenderness, swelling in the extremities, or rash, swelling or redness of the skin. Id. at H392. Dr. Taba did find tenderness to palpation in Howard’s shoulders, middle and lower spine, and elbow, but also observed a full range of motion of the cervical spine. Id. Overall, Dr. Taba opined, “Ms. Howard appears to be doing fairly well with the problems as reviewed. There is no obvious sign of inflammatory type arthritis at this time.” He instructed Howard to exercise, maintain current medications, and return for a follow up appointment in one month to review blood lab results. Id. at H393.

Howard followed up with Dr. Taba on September 19, 2005, complaining of aches and pains, headaches, inability to sleep, and “feeling poorly.” AR at H389. After examination, Dr. Taba reported that Howard’s shoulder, elbow, wrists, hands, hip, knees, and ankle joints “were found to be without abnormality.” Id. Dr. Taba reported that Howard appeared to be in “moderate pain” and exhibited “tenderness to palpation” of shoulder and back. He also noted that she was “overweight” at 278 pounds. Id. at H290. Howard’s blood tests showed an elevated antinuclear antibody (ANA) level, which is relevant to a diagnosis of an autoimmune condition. Dr. Taba concluded:

Overall Ms. Howard appears to be doing poorly with the problems as reviewed. Although ANA is positive, but there is no other finding in the history or exam to suggest an autoimmune rheumatic disease at this time. There is no obvious sign of inflammatory type arthritis at this time.

Id. at H390. Dr. Taba wrote that he had a “long discussion” with Howard about fibromyalgia, and referred her to Brooks Rehabilitation Hospital for “rehab.” “She has a great deal of difficulty going back to work, however she was told that with fibromyalgia it would be beneficial for the patient to be active in the society.” Id. at H390.

Hartford forwarded a second Questionnaire to Dr. Decker on August 31, 2005, asking Dr. Decker to reconcile Dr. Taba’s finding that Howard was doing “fairly well” and questioned how the physician’s findings of “spasms, severe joint pain” were determined. AR at H534. Dr. Decker responded that he made his determination “after multiple exams,” based upon Howard’s reports that she was unable to dress herself, and brush her hair “due to severe hand and wrist pain.” He left blank and did not respond to Hartford’s question about whether Howard’s cognitive abilities had ever been tested, stating only that he determined Howard’s cognitive abilities were impaired “with office conversation,” and that at times, she was “confused, unable to remember short term events.” Id. Dr. Decker also reported that he had determined that Howard has “severe problems” based on “Patient reports” of pain. Id.; see also H535-H536.

Dr. Decker submitted an Attending Physician’s Statement of Continued Disability, dated October 27, 2005, in which he wrote that his primary diagnosis of Howard was lupus and fibromyalgia, with a secondary diagnosis of severe joint pain, asthma, and depression. See AR at H481484; see also id. at H221; H478. Dr. Decker opined that Howard had severe limitations in standing, walking, sitting, lifting and carrying, reaching overhead, driving, and using a keyboard (“No more than 1 hr. — causes swelling and severe joint pain”), and that she was unable to push or pull. Id. at H482. He also completed a “Physical Capacities Evaluation Form,” in which he stated that Howard not was not capable of 1) sitting for more than one hour at a time; 2) standing for more than five minutes; or 3) walking more than “short distances.” Id. at H483. In support of her application for LTD benefits, Howard also submitted her own typewritten statement in which she reported that she was specifically limited and unable to perform the functions of her job, because of the following impairments:

• Unable to manage multiple tasks due to short term memory problems and chronic fatigue

• Difficulty standing and sitting for extended periods of time

• Chronic pain in back (upper/lower), numbness, pain and swelling in legs, hands, wrists, elbows, fingers, feet, hips and major joints

• Loss of fine motor skills

• Difficulty concentrating

• Unable to lift or carry more than 2-3 pounds

• At times, unable to dress without assistance

• Unable to write or type more than a few minutes due to spasms and pain in fingers and hands

• Unable to cut food, talk on the telephone or read a book or magazine without resting it on a table due to pain, numbness, spasms in hands, arms and fingers and shoulders

AR at H474-H480.

C. Hartford Approves LTD Benefits

On November 1, 2005, Hartford advised Howard that her claim for LTD benefits had been approved effective November 4, 2005, and that she had been approved through November 10, 2005. AR at H470. Hartford required Howard to attend an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) scheduled for her on November 11, 2005, and paid for by Hartford. Hartford notified Howard her LTD benefits would be extended beyond the IME pending its results. Id Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, if eligible for LTD benefits, Howard would receive disability benefits equal to 60% of her monthly income, for a monthly disability benefit of $5,512.03. Id. at H470-73. However, Hartford also explained that

On a periodic basis we will be providing you with supplementary claim forms for the purpose of furnishing us with continued proof of Disability. You will remain eligible to receive benefit payments subject to plan terms and limitations, as long as you meet the plan definition and requirements....

Id. at H471.

On November 11, 2005, Dr. Mark Hoffman performed an IME on Howard. AR at H456-64. Dr. Hoffman noted that Howard was a 43 year old woman, height 5'6", and though she would not get on the scale, he estimated her weight to be approximately 300 pounds. Id. at H461. Dr. Hoffman reviewed Howard’s medical records, and previous test results. He noted that Howard had a “normal ANA rheumatoid factor” in 2003, and March 2005 blood tests, and that her most recent ANA test in August 2005 “was positive.” He recounted three x-rays, which were all “negative”; a magnetic resonance image (“MRI”) of the right hip which showed “no abnormalities”; a pulmonary function test in 2003 which showed a “ ‘Moderate decrease in gas exchange’ ”; a “normal” electrocardiogram in January 2005; a “negative” carotid doppler report dated January 2005; and a May 2005 pelvic ultrasound which only showed evidence of a previous hysterectomy. Id. at H460. Dr. Hoffman observed that while Howard entered the examination room with a cane, she was able to get on and off the examination table independently. Id. at H461. Dr. Hoffman conducted a physical examination of Howard, and noted tenderness on palpation of her neck, spine, back, upper sternum, one elbow, shoulders, hands, and right hip. He said that “[s]he had full range of motion of the joints, except in the left shoulder [describing limitations] ..., and right hip range of motion was mildly limited in all directions due to pain.” Dr. Hoffman recorded that Howard had clear lungs and a normal heart beat. He did not observe a muscle spasm “due to adipose tissue,” but did observe “mild diffuse swelling of the lower extremities and hands.” He observed that Howard was alert, cooperative, had normal speech, and became tearful during the evaluation. Id. H461-62. Dr. Hoffman listed his “Impression” as:

1. Probable fibromyalgia.

2. Possible systemic lupus erythamatosus.

8. History of depression.

4. History of asthma.

5. Obesity.

Id. at H462. Dr. Hoffman noted that his objective findings “were limited to edema in the hands and distal lower extremities, as well as a malar rash over her face.” Id. at H462. Hoffman wrote:

Although Ms. Howard has some symptoms and objective abnormalities (major rash and positive ANA) consistent with SLE [lupus], from the medical records reviewed, and from her examination today, it is uncertain whether she truly has this diagnosis. On the other hand, fibromyalgia is likely based upon her symptomatology. Fibromyalgia is not a condition that can be confirmed with any objective tests or findings. She does have diffuse tenderness on palpation over traditional fibromyalgia tender-points but also has diffuse pain over other areas. She does not have inconsistences evident on physical examination and appeared to be a reliable historian.

Id. at H463. Dr. Hoffman recommended the following “work and activity restrictions:”

No lifting or carrying greater than 10 pounds occasionally, less than one hour per day of keyboarding and repetitive hand motion, avoidance of pulling, pushing, and repetitive bending, repetitive overhead activities, or standing/walking more than 10 minutes at a time.

Id. at H462. Based on the results of the IME, Hartford extended Howard’s LTD benefits beyond November 2005. Id. at H455, H1323-24.

Howard continued to see Dr. Decker for follow-up visits. On February 6, 2006, he reported that Howard “continues to have severe pain in her joints and muscles,” “experienced frequent palpitations,” and reported pain in her left shoulder “due to pain which radiates from her cervical spine and shoulder down the left arm” creating a “sensation of parathesia and heat in the extremity.” AR at H401. A March 1, 2006 MRI of Howard’s left shoulder suggested “probable impingement with degeneration or partial-thickness tear of ... [two] tendons.” H362. An MRI of Howard’s spine, also on March 1, 2006, revealed mild, slight or small bulging discs at four locations. H372-H375.

On August 7, 2006, Dr. Decker saw Howard for a follow-up visit. He reported that Howard “is having a great deal of difficulty with her joints particularly her upper extremities and cervical spine.... She is still requiring pain control.” AR at H1262. Three months later, on November 13, 2006, Dr. Decker noted that Howard “continues to have pain in her left shoulder” and “pedal edema,” swelling in the feet and ankles. Id. at H1260. On November 30, 2006, Dr. Decker reported that Howard “continues to have a number of symptoms related to her fibromyalgia. She also has difficulty with sleep, tachycardia [fast heart rate], chest pains, and bladder.” Id. at H1258.

The Administrative Record reflects that Howard also had a series of six appointments between March 27, 2006 and September 20, 2006 with three orthopaedic doctors, presenting to them with neck, back and shoulder pain. AR at H335, H337, H340, H351, H352, H1235, H1236. Following a series of evaluations and tests, the orthopaedic diagnosis was:

1. Chronic pain syndrome.

2. Scheuermann’s Disease.

3. Fibromyalgia.

4. Lupus.

5. Left shoulder partial rotator cuff tear.

6. Trace left sided carpal tunnel syndrome. Mild right sided carpal tunnel syndrome.

7. Neck pain, disc bulges at C4-5 and C5-6 that does intent the thecal sac. Possible radiculopathy.

AR at H1235. The orthopaedic doctors recommended medication, physical therapy, and participation in a pain management program.

Howard also consulted with cardiologists between 2003 and 2005. AR at H634-43. The cardiologists found no cardiac abnormalities, and concluded that her “significant overweight disorder ... may be the absolute etiology for her shortness of breath.” Id. at H635-36. A treadmill study was “terminated because of fatigue” and not due to chest discomfort, Id. at H641. The cardiologist noted “cardiovascular deconditioning.” Id. A second cardiologist opined that the “ ‘pleuritic pairi ” of which Howard complains is not cardiac-related. Id. at H634.

D. Hartford’s Investigation

Hartford initiated surveillance of Howard in March 2006 “[t]o better.understand [her] capabilities.” AR at H221; see also id. at H148-H202; H1328. Investigator Jose Martinez (“Martinez”), with Triad Investigations, began an investigation on March 9, 2006. Id. at H148; H169. Hartford’s investigative Case Information Form regarding Howard reflected that Howard’s benefits, commencing November 4, 2005, were $4,220 a month, and that $432,819.00 was listed in “net reserve.” Id. at H149.

A total of 60-hours of surveillance was conducted over the course of six days: March 30-31, April 1, and May 8, 9, and 10, 2006. AR at H151-H153, H168-H202 (Triad Investigative Report). The investigator furnished Hartford with three-hours and fourteen (14) minutes of surveillance video, and a written report of Howard’s observed activities during more than 20 hours away from her home. The following description of the observed activities, some of which were documented in the surveillance video, are taken from Hartford’s Case Information Form, id. at H151-53; Triad Investigations Investigative Report, id. at H168-H202; the November 10, 2006 Independent Medical Report of Dr. William Sniger, M.D., who reviewed and analyzed the surveillance report and video at Hartford’s request, id. at H237-39; and Hartford’s November 15, 2006 correspondence to Howard terminating her LTD benefits. Id. at H218-28. The surveillance results are also found in Hartford’s Investigative Summary, dated January 1, 2007. Id. at H1811-1906.

March 30, 2006: Howard was observed taking her daughter to and from school and stopping briefly at the local library. “You were observed sitting for approximately 50 minutes while waiting for your daughter,” and “driving approximately 22 miles.” Howard was observed walking “with a normal gait without any assistive devices,” and pulling her purse strap over her head. She was away from her home one hour and six minutes.

AR at H151; H173-75; H221; H237.

March 31, 2006: Howard was away from her home approximately five hours and 57 minutes. During this time, Howard was observed driving her daughter to and from school, going to a book store, a Wal-Mart store, a pizza shop, a nail salon, a Hallmark store, and a grocery store. Howard was observed pumping gas without difficulty handling the nozzle and screwing the gas cap; walking normally while carrying her cane in her right hand; bending at her waist and reaching above her head; carrying two shopping bags in her left hand while talking on a cell phone held also in her left hand; sitting in her car talking on her cell phone for 10 minutes; shopping — in Wal Mart continuously for an hour; pushing a full shopping cart to her vehicle; pushing open a store door; “turning her head fully to the left while turning the steering wheel fully with her left hand and simultaneously talking on a cell phone that she held in her right hand”; and sitting in her car for 45 minutes while waiting for her daughter to exit school.

Id. at H221, H151, H221, H238.

April 1, 2006: Howard was observed away from her home approximately one hour, driving for 15 minutes.

Id. at H151; H181-82; H221; H238. At this point, the Hartford investigative examiner wrote in the Case Information Form, in a “summary” dated April 18, 2006:

Investigative Disposition: During this investigation the claimant was observed walking with and without her cane. The claimant was active for almost 6 hours on 3/31. However, we did not document significant activity on consecutive days and the claimant was observed using a cane at times. We have not documented significant inconsistencies which would impact this claim. Therefore, at this time I am closing out my handling of this claim. The claimant’s physician has recommended exercise and weight loss. If the claimant improves her physical condition surveillance may be appropriate in the future. TJS.

04/19/06 — Investigation closed auto email sent. (HITS)

4/21/06 — I discussed this file with Team Leader Schacht. We have not documented inconsistencies which would impact this claim at this time. However, the subject’s observed activities of being away from her residence for approximately 6 hours while driving her daughter to and from school, going to a book store, a Wal Mart, a Pizza Shop, a nail salon, a Hallmark store, and a grocery store are inconsistent with the claimant’s reported restrictions of being unable to stand or walk greater than 5-10 minutes or needing assistance washing her hair. During the surveillance time she was also observed bending at the waist and reaching above her head. The inconsistencies documented do need further investigation. To further document the claimant’s activities I will request that Triad conduct an additional 20 hours of surveillance. TJS.

Id. at H151-52; see also id. at H192 (on April 21, 2006, Triad “instructed to conduct an additional investigation”). On April 21, 2006, the Summary Report reflects that “SIU has reopened its investigation.” AR at H1329.

Thereafter, on May 8, 2006, the Hartford examiner wrote that Hartford had received an update from Triad Investigations regarding a second round of surveillance. AR at H152. The following surveillance observations were made:

May 8, 2006: Howard was observed driving her daughter to and from school, “operating a vehicle. Howard sat in her vehicle for 33 minutes waiting for her daughter to emerge from school. Howard was observed opening a box of crackers using both hands, reading, turning pages, and manipulating papers, while sitting in her vehicle. She was away from her home approximately one hour and 51 minutes, sitting in her vehicle a total of one hour and 11 minutes.

AR at H152; H193; H196-97; H221.

May 9, 2006: Howard was observed dropping her daughter off at school and driving 124 miles south to Titusville, Florida and back again, traveling on Interstate 95, a two-hour drive each way. “The subject was documented operating a vehicle for extended distances, approximately 248 miles in total, requiring her to sit for long periods, and walking.” At the end of the trip, she drove to the middle school. Howard was away from her residence approximately seven hours.

Id. at H152; H193; H197; H221-22.

May 10, 2006: Howard observed arriving at car dealership and walking to service center to pick up her vehicle, then driving to the bank, and then her residence. During this errand, Howard was observed walking first 20 yards, and then 35 yards at the dealership and 20 yards at the bank, carrying her purse in her left hand. She remained at the bank for one hour, and then returned to her vehicle where she “opens the driver’s door and bends down at her waist into the floor board area of the driver seat” and then “stands upright and raises her right leg as she enters the vehicle via the drivers door.” Howard then traveled to a restaurant, and then to Brooks Hospital, accompanied by two females. There, Howard was observed exiting her vehicle and retrieving a metal walker from the rear of the vehicle for the older female traveling with her. Howard was “documented riding as a passenger in a vehicle, operating a vehicle, entering/exiting a vehicle, walking, leaning/bending at her waist, and lifting a metal walker,” walking 40 yards to the hospital entrance. She was observed walking without a cane, and appear to walk with a normal gait while carrying her purse in her left hand. When driving, “[s]he turned the steering wheel with a normal hand-overhand motion as she backed out....” Howard was away from her home for three hours and 57 minutes.

Id. at H153, H193, H200-H201, H222, H238-29.

At the conclusion of the two rounds of surveillance, the Hartford examiner wrote:

6 days of surveillance have been completed. The subject has been observed on each day of surveillance running errands. She was away from the residence for extended periods of time up to 7 hours and driving a total of 248 miles in one day. The subjects [sic] observed activities are not consistent with the claimant’s reports of being limited due to pain and fatigue. Therefore at this time I will refer this file to SIU Home Office for a claimant interview.

I also requested updated medical records from the claimant’s physicians and I requested that the examiner refer this file for an Occupational Analysis as this was not done prior to approval.

Id. at H153. In sum, Howard was observed away from her home in various activities for a total of 20 hours and 51 minutes over the course of six days of surveillance, divided into two three-consecutive-day segments. Approximately three hours and fourteen (14) minutes of the observed activity was recorded by the investigator on a surveillance video. (Doc. 210; Notice).

On June 30, 2006, Howard was interviewed at her residence for three hours by Triad investigator Martinez. Id. at H1707-15; see also H154-55; H222-26; H1822-1833. Martinez provided Howard with a detailed statement (“06/30/06 Disability Statement”) regarding her condition, restrictions and limitations. Howard reviewed the statement, and made handwritten corrections she wished to make, and then signed and dated the statement, certifying that it was “true and accurate.” H1707-15. Martinez did not advise Howard about the surveillance and video, stating that “[d]ue to the claimant’s mood swings and emotional state I decided that to show the video had the potential to aggravate the claimant’s mental condition.” Id. at H155. Martinez observed Howard pick up her small dog (4 to 5 pounds) with her left arm, walk slowly with a cane, sit for three hours, use a pen, hold and turn pages of paper to review, and shake hands. Id. at H156. She displayed a “good range of motion.” Id. He reported that she was emotional “a few times” and appeared depressed, “she cried often, cooperative, attentive, complained of pain, she repeatedly kept asking me ‘how much longer’ and she remained responsive throughout the entire interview.” Id.

Hartford sent the surveillance video, the surveillance summary, and the 06/30/06 Disability Statement, as well as Howard’s medical records from 2001 through 2006, to Dr. William Sniger, a board certified physician in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and spinal cord injury medicine, with the Medical Advisory Group LLC, (“MAG”). AR at H229-H240. In his report, dated November 10, 2006, Sniger observed that “[sjurveillance video revealed the claimant performing activities in excess of her stated limitations.” Id. at H239.

During the 6 days of surveillance, the claimant occasionally used a cane, but her gait appeared non-antalgic with normal stride, cadence, speed and balance although somewhat waddling due to her obesity. She appeared to have normal [range of motion] of all 4 extremities, neck and back and showed no signs of fatigue or discomfort. She apparently had no difficulty ordering at two restaurants and had no problems getting lost while driving hundreds of miles.

Id. He continued:

She briefly used a cane, but most of the time did not and ambulated with an essentially normal gait although she somewhat waddled due to her morbid obesity. [She] showed no signs of fatigue or discomfort while bending 90 degrees at the waist, walking up and down the aisles at a bookstore and while shopping at Wal-Mart, talking on a cell phone while walking and driving, and continuously driving for 2 hours at a time x 2 during one day.

Id. Dr. Sniger concluded that: “Based upon the subjective and objective information available to me, it is my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the preponderance of information does not support the claimant’s alleged inability to perform full-time work from a physical perspective.” Id. at H240. Sniger recommended that Howard be provided with the following restrictions: “Lifting/carrying of 10 pounds occasionally; opportunity to change positions periodically; standing/walking occasionally; no climbing, squatting or crawling. No other restrictions are indicated.” Id.

E. Termination of LTD Benefits

In a letter to Howard, dated November 15, 2006, Hartford terminated Howard’s LTD benefits. AR H218-28. Hartford wrote that

We have completed our review of your claim for benefits and have determined that the evidence submitted in support of your claim does not establish that you continue to meet the Policy [Plan] definítion of Disability. Accordingly, LTD benefits are not payable to you under the terms of this Policy beyond November 15, 2006....

Id. at H218. Hartford wrote that it based its decision to terminate the LTD benefits upon the Plan’s language and “all documents contained in your claim file, viewed as a whole.” Id. at H219. In the letter, Hartford compared the observations made of Howard during the surveillance and recorded in the video with her inconsistent responses made in the 06/30/06 Disability Report, including 1) her statement that she used her cane 90% of the time when she was observed during surveillance using the cane “infrequently;” 2) her statement that she could not sit for more than one hour, when she “remained seated in her padded dining room chair for 3 hours and ten minutes” during the interview; and 3) her statement that she could not drive for more than 30 minutes or more than 20 miles, when in fact she was observed driving for approximately 248 miles. Id. at H226. Hartford wrote that “[a]fter reviewing the statements you provided to Mr. Martinez, we felt that additional clarification of your medical condition was necessary as it did not appear that your observed activities and self-report activities were consistent with your report that you were unable to perform your sedentary occupation,” and referred the claim to Hartford’s Medical Claim Manager. Id. Hartford determined that “[b]ased on the documents in your claim file, ... you have the ability to perform a sedentary to light occupation with the following restrictions and limitations: lifting/carrying of up to 10 lbs. occasionally; opportunity to change position periodically; standing/walking occasionally; no chmbing, squatting or crawling.” Id. at H228. Comparing this finding with the job description for Business Strategy Manager I, “[t]he weight of the evidence does not support that you are prevented from performing the Essential Duties of Your Occupation.” Id.

Hartford’s investigative Case Information Form reported that the investigation was initiated March 9, 2006, and that the end status was “closed.” It reported an “Outcome” of “Termination” on November 15, 2006, and “Amount $316,022.00.” AR at H148, 150. Hartford’s January 7, 2007 Investigative Summary, entitled “Questionable Disability Claim” “Howard, Kimberly A,” id. at H1811, reported “Date Concluded” as November 15, 2006, and “Reserve: $316,022.00.” Id. at 1812.

F. Howard’s Appeal of Termination of LTD Benefits

On May 11, 2007, Howard, through her attorney, appealed Hartford’s termination of her LTD benefits, in accordance with the Plan’s procedural framework. AR at H1440-52. In the appeal, Howard contended that she is “totally disabled and unable to perform one or more of the essential duties of her occupation due to her fibromyalgia and lupus.” Id. at H1444. Hartford Examiner James Powell was assigned to Howard’s appeal. Id. at H1348.

In support of her appeal, Howard cited to the January 25, 2007 report of Dr. Orlando Florete, with the Institute of Pain Management in Jacksonville, Florida. AR H1249-52; H1453. Dr. Florete stated that Howard reported to him she experienced severe burning or throbbing pain at numerous points that has “worsened over time and is tender to touch.” “Exercise, prolonged sitting, standing, walking, change in the weather, stress, sex, fatigue, bending forward or backward, leaning forward, coughing, sneezing, touching the skin, and working worsen the pain.” Id. at H1250. Under the heading “Functional Capacity,” Dr. Florete wrote:

The patient is totally and permanently disabled. She used to work for Fidelity Company but had to stop working because of the progressively increasing pain, fatigue, and memory loss.

Id. at H1251. In his physical examination, Dr. Florete noted tenderness on palpation in the back, neck, shoulders, chest, and multiple joints including shoulder, elbows, wrists, fingers, knees, ankles and feet. However, he also noted no heart problems, no tenderness in the abdomen, no range of motion problems in the spine, good pulses in extremities, no edema, and no focal neurological deficit. Id. at H1251. Based upon his examination and review of her medical records, Dr. Florete diagnosed:

1. Fibromyalgia.

2. Cervical degenerative disc disease.

3. Systemic lupus erythematosus.

4. Carpal tunnel syndrome bilaterally.

5. Left shoulder rotator cuff tear.

He recommended physical therapy and medication. Id. at H1252.

Howard also submitted an Attending Physician Statement, completed by Dr. Florete on February 13, 2007, reiterating the observations he made the previous month, and listing her limitations and restrictions as being unable to lift more than 10 pounds, and being “prohibited” from “prolonged standing, walking, sitting, kneeling.” Dr. Florete opined that Howard is “totally disabled” and that her prognosis is “poor in terms of future employment.” AR at H1244-146; H1453. In addition to medications, Dr. Florete recommended cervical epidural injections, to which she responded she would think about it, and physical therapy for her reported neck pain with intermittent numbness of both extremities. Id. On April 5, 2007, Dr. Florete examined Howard and said the physical exam “remains unchanged.” Id. at H1253; H1453. Howard reported to Dr. Florete that the pain in her neck and upper back is worse, grading it as a 7 out of 10. The doctor increased medication and continued to recommend steroid injections and physical therapy. Id. at H1253. Howard had pursued neither physical therapy or steroid injections, despite Dr. Florete’s previous recommendations. Id.

Howard further supported her appeal with an Attending Physician Statement by Dr. Decker, dated April 22, 2007. Dr. Decker reported that “Patient states that she experiences severe joint pain in all extremities and cervical spine,” and “severe loss of use of both hands,” rendering her unable to dress. Dr. Decker listed restrictions “according to” Howard as needing assistance with all activities” and “mobility is extremely limited.” Dr. Decker listed his diagnosis as being fibromyalgia, hypertension, chronic fatigue, insomnia, depression (which is secondary to disability), and listed “lupus as diagnosed by rheumatologist Taba.” Dr. Decker concluded that “when patient has a flare up of her fibromyalgia and lupus she is totally disabled. This is frequent.” AR at H1254-56.

The Administrative Record also includes a Vocational Evaluation Report submitted by Howard, dated June 27, 2006. AR at H1502-14. Vocational rehabilitation consultant Teresa Manning (“Manning”) reported that she conducted an evaluation on June 8, 2007, followed by an interview on June 25, 2007, necessitated by Howard’s “inability to continue the initial evaluation due to physical discomfort....” Id. at H1503. Manning noted that the Business Strategy Manager position is classified as “sedentary and skilled.” Id. at H1507. Manning reviewed Howard’s medical records and the results from Hartford’s surveillance of Howard, and recounted Howard’s “perception” of her medical status. Manning did not report that her evaluation included any functional capacity testing. Based on her review, Manning concluded that Howard is totally disabled and unable to work an any job for the following reason:

The physical and cognitive results of trying to cope with continuous pain does not equate to the day to day reliability and attentiveness expected by any employer in the competitive job market. When adding the claimant’s daily fatigue necessitating rest periods exceeding 2 hours per day her ability to achieve a full time structured work schedule is further compromised. Likewise, the expected loss of concentration and focus caused by Mrs. Howard’s fatigue and pain is an added detriment to her productivity and subsequent employability. The end result is the claimant becomes unable to work on a full time basis with reasonable continuity in any occupation irregardless of that occupation’s physical demands category or skill classification.

Id. at H1513. Addressing the surveillance observations and videos, Manning said that equating “minutes or even hours of filmed attempts on isolated days of assisting her elderly parents ... or driving her only child to school and after school activities with the ability to carry out essential functions of any occupation with reasonable continuity for a 40 hour work week is ludicrous.” Id. at H1513-14. Additionally, she rejected Dr. Sniger’s opinion that Howard could perform the duties of her job, albeit with some restrictions. Manning opined that Howard’s inability to engage in sedentary work renders her unable to perform the essential duties of her occupation or of “any gainful occupation” for which she is qualified. Id. at H1514.

Howard also submitted her own rebuttal of Hartford’s surveillance findings. AR at H1593. Howard explained that on April 25, 2006, she drove 125 miles to Titusville, two hours south of Jacksonville, to assist her elderly mother care for her father, who had fallen in the driveway and broken his hip. She said she stayed in Titusville for a week, and then she had her parents transported to Jacksonville’s Brooks Rehabilitation Hospital. Id. at H1593-94. Two weeks later, on May 9, 2006, Howard drove her mother to Titusville to retrieve her father’s leg brace, clothes and paperwork. They drove back to Jacksonville that same day. Id. at H1594. This second drive to and from Titusville was the one observed by Hartford’s investigator. Howard did not specifically recall the other events observed, but stated that the March 31, 2006 day in which she was observed away from her home for six hours making numerous stops “must have been a good day for me.” Id. at H1593. Howard reiterated that:

[a]ll of the information that I documented and told Mr. Martinez [in the 06/3006 Disability Statement] is 100% true and I will swear to it under oath. However, not all of these symptoms persist to the highest level 100% of the time.

Id. at 1595.

In his Initial Appeal Review, dated May 31, 2007, Hartford appeals specialist James Powell wrote that based upon the record, “an additional medical review will be needed.” AR at H1348-49. Accordingly, neuropsychologist Dr. Carol Walker, Ph.D., and physician Dr. Phillip Marion, both of whom are with the company Reed Review Services (“RSS”), reviewed Howard’s medical records and claim file at Hartford’s request. The consulting health care providers reviewed Howard’s extensive medical records, Hartford’s investigation and video surveillance, and Dr. Sniger’s report. The packet of information provided to the consulting providers included Hartford’s Case Information Form, which contained the above-noted “net reserve” dollar figure. See id. at 1516. The reviewers forwarded their findings to Hartford in a report dated June 26, 2007. AR at H151524. Dr. Walker determined that “There is no objective evidence of deficit in functionality from a neuropsychological perspective. There are no restrictions or limitations from 04/2005 through the present,” and “insufficient data” to connect Howard’s physical issues with psychological issues. Id. at H1517. According to Dr. Walker:

Based on the records reviewed, there is no objective data to support psychological or cognitive symptoms that would interfere with her ability to work. She has not been evaluated or treated by a mental health professional. Cognitive and psychological issues have not been documented as the focus of treatment by her medical providers other than for an increase in Zoloft and a recommendation that she see someone for depression. Ms. Howard reportedly declined this recommendation.

Id. at H1518. Walker opined that “[f]rom a psychological/neuropsychological perspective, there are no restrictions or limitations.” Id. at H1517-18.

Dr. Marion also reviewed Howard’s extensive medical records and the surveillance results. Dr. Marion stated:

The patient is a 44 year old obese female with complaints of chronic musculoskeletal pain and underlying diagnosis of lupus. Her treating rheumatologist indicated there was no physical examination evidence of inflammatory joint disease. Neurological examination is consistently normal. Her continued complaints of incapacitating full body pain are inconsistent with her observed functional independence.

AR at H1522. Dr. Marion stated his opinion that Howard has the “ability to work at least at the light duty occupational level,” with an unrestricted sitting requirement. Id. at H1523. Dr. Marion recognized the following physical restrictions: standing and walking (up to four hours a day); climbing (two flights of stairs occasionally); lifting and carrying (20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently); and occasional pushing, pulling, bending, squatting, twisting and upper extremity use (with left shoulder). Id. He concluded that “there is insufficient evidence to preclude Ms. Howard from performing her full-time sedentary occupation.” Id. In conclusion, Dr. Walker, in consultation with Dr. Marion, wrote that Howard’s reported chronic pain, and obesity “would not preclude her ability to work,” and that “[t]he medical records do not support functional incapacity for this claimant.” Id. at H1524. The Walker/Marion report is “unsigned.” Howard Response at 19 (citing H1524).

Hartford upheld its termination of Howard’s LTD benefits under the Plan, on June 28, 2007. Complaint ¶ 24; Answer ¶24; AR at H1498-H1500. Referencing Howard’s medical history and the surveillance video, Hartford’s Senior Appeal Specialist James Powell wrote in a letter to Howard’s attorney:

[T]his is a complicated claim in large part due to the nature of Ms. Howard’s conditions. More specifically, in determining her functionality her physicians must rely almost exclusively on her report as opposed to specific testing. As such, it is not surprising that the forms reflect rather significant limitations and restrictions as Ms. Howard perceives herself as very limited. However, Ms. Howard’s report is indeed at odds with the surveillance inasmuch as Ms. Howard is more functional than the restrictions noted on the forms and as reported by her.

Id. at H1499. Noting that Howard had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and lupus years before she ceased working, Hartford stated that it is “unclear what precipitated the cessation from work....” Id.

There is no indication of a clear event or incident or even one specific malady that suddenly caused her to stop working. Instead, it appears that the combination of her symptoms, by her own perception, made working 40 hours per week difficult for her. It would stand to reason then, that while not working, she also could not repeatedly perform activities day after day yet again this is contradicted by the surveillance in that she was observed as fairly active on consecutive days.

Id. Powell wrote that Hartford had reviewed the report from Howard’s vocational consultant Manning, as well as “all other evidence,” and concluded “there remains insufficient support for Ms. Howard’s claim.” Id. at H1500.

While Ms. Howard was not observed on surveillance for 5 straight days, 8 hours per day, she was observed performing activities in excess of her reported limitations and as such, her report is not entirely reliable. Thus, the restrictions and limitations imposed by her physicians, being rooted in Ms. Howard’s report almost exclusively, is likewise an unreliable indicator of Ms. Howard’s functionality.

Id. Hartford determined that “the weight of the evidence continues to support Ms. Howard’s capacity to perform her occupation on a full-time basis,” citing to the opinions of three consulting health care providers — Drs. Sniger, and Marion, and Walker, and Hartford’s nurse practitioner — as support, and discounting the opinions of Howard’s physicians, Drs. Decker and Florete, because they did not review Ms. Howard’s activity in the surveillance videos. Id. at H1500; H1352. Hartford concluded that “[w]hile we do not dispute that Ms. Howard indeed has the condition of Fibromyalgia, it is clear that she has been capable of working for years with said condition, and as noted by Dr. Sniger and Dr. Marion, and further corroborated by surveillance, Ms. Howard remains capable of performing activities consistent with sedentary to light duty work commensurate with the demands of her occupation.” Id. at H1500.

Hartford has not paid Howard LTD benefits since November 15, 2006. Complaint ¶ 25; Answer ¶ 25.

II. Applicable Summary Judgment Standard

Under Rule 56(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a). However, “ ‘[i]n an ERISA benefit denial case ... in a very real sense, the district court sits more as an appellate tribunal than as a trial court. It does not take evidence, but rather, evaluates the reasonableness of an administrative determination in light of the record compiled before the plan fiduciary.’ ” Curran v. Kemper Nat’l Servs., Inc., No. 04-14097, 2005 WL 894840, at *7 (11th Cir. Mar. 16, 2005) (quoting Leahy v. Raytheon Co., 315 F.3d 11, 17-18 (1st Cir.2002)); see also Harvey v. Standard Ins. Co., 850 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1275 n. 5 (N.D.Ala.2012), aff'd Harvey v. Standard Ins. Co., 503 Fed.Appx. 845 (11th Cir.2013); Epolito v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 737 F.Supp.2d 1364, 1369 (M.D.Fla.2010). Accordingly, where an administrator’s decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, “ ‘a motion for summary judgment is merely the conduit to bring the legal question before the district court and the usual tests of summary judgment, such as whether a genuine dispute of material fact exist, do not apply.’ ” Crume v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 417 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1272 (M.D.Fla.2006) (quoting Bendixen v. Standard Ins. Co., 185 F.3d 939, 942 (9th Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds by Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 965 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc)); Disanto v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 8:05-CV-1031-T-27MSS, 2007 WL 2460732, at *4 (M.D.Fla. Aug. 24, 2007); Menard v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 6:05-cv-1145-Orl-31DAB, 2006 WL 3091527, at *4 (M.D.Fla. Oct. 30, 2006); Providence v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 357 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1342 n. 1 (M.D.Fla.2005). Indeed,

where the ultimate issue to be determined is whether there is a reasonable basis for a claims administrator’s benefits decision, it is difficult to ascertain how the “normal” summary judgment rules can sensibly apply. After all, the pertinent question is not whether the claimant is truly disabled, but whether there is a reasonable basis in the record to support the administrator’s decision on [the point in contention],

Crume, 417 F.Supp.2d at 1273. Thus, “conflicting evidence on the question of disability cannot alone create an issue of fact precluding summary judgment, since an administrator’s decision that rejects certain evidence and credits conflicting proof may nevertheless be reasonable.” Crume, 417 F.Supp.2d at 1272. The Court will review this case using the modified Rule 56 standard set forth in Curran and Crume. See Curran, 2005 WL 894840, at *7, Crume, 417 F.Supp.2d at 1272-73; see also Ganceres v. Cingular Wireless Health and Welfare Benefits Plan for Hon-Bargained Emps., No. 3:04-cv-199-J-32HTS, 2006 WL 2644919, at *6-7 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 14, 2006).

III. Standard of Review Applicable to ERISA Benefít Determinations

Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), a person may bring a civil action “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). ERISA itself provides no standard for review of the benefits decision of plan administrators. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 108-109, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). Based on Supreme Court guidance in Firestone and Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 115-119, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008), the Eleventh Circuit has established a multi-step framework for review of ERISA benefit decisions:

(1) Apply the de novo standard 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.

(2) If the administrator’s decision in fact is “de novo wrong,” then determine whether he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims; if not, end judicial inquiry and reverse the decision.

(3) If the administrator’s decision is “de novo wrong” and he was vested with discretion in reviewing claims, then determine whether “reasonable” grounds supported it (hence, review his decision under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard).

(4) If no reasonable grounds exist, then end the inquiry and reverse the administrator’s decision; if reasonable grounds do exist, then determine if he operated under a conflict of interest.

(5) If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision.

(6) If there is a conflict, the conflict should merely be a factor for the court to take into account when determining whether an administrator’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Blankenship v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 644 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir.2011). All steps of the analysis are “potentially at issue” when a plan vests discretion to the plan administrator to make benefits determinations. Id., at 1356 n. 7. Thus, even if the Court were to determine that the administrator’s decision was “de novo wrong,” the Court must proceed to the next steps of the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis and accord the appropriate level of deference due to Hartford’s determination as the Plan administrator. Further, in instances where LTD benefits are once approved, and subsequently terminated, a claimant retains the burden of proving continued disability after benefits are discontinued and the administrator need not show a change in the claimant’s condition. Richards v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 356 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1284 (S.D.Fla.2004), aff'd, 153 Fed.Appx. 694 (11th Cir.2005); Hufford v. Harris Corp., 322 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1360 (M.D.Fla.2004).

Here, there is no dispute that Hartford had full discretion and authority to determine eligibility benefits and to construe and interpret all terms and provisions of the Plan. Plan at 14. Thus, under Blankenship, the Court’s review of Hartford’s decision to terminate Howard’s LTD benefits is governed by the deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review. “Under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the court seeks ‘to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the [administrator’s] decision, based upon the facts as known to the administrator at the time the decision was made.’ ” Townsend v. Delta Family-Care Disability and Survivorship Plan, 295 Fed.Appx. 971, 976 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Hunt v. Hawthorne Assocs., Inc., 119 F.3d 888, 912 (11th Cir.1997) (internal quotations and brackets omitted)). “As long as the decision had a re