Tennessee Federal Court Upholds Unum’s Termination of ERISA Long-Term Disability Benefits, Finding No Abuse of Discretion

In Smith v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 1:21-CV-294-KAC-CHS, 2026 WL 1949312 (E.D. Tenn. July 6, 2026), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee upheld the termination of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed group policy, holding that Unum Life Insurance Company of America and Unum Group did not abuse their discretion. United States District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer adopted the Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger, overruled Plaintiff’s objections, granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the administrative record, and denied Plaintiff’s cross-motion and his separate motion to determine the extent of deference owed to Unum’s decision.

What Was the Basis for Plaintiff’s ERISA Disability Claim?

Plaintiff worked as a senior software engineer and stopped working in June 2015, claiming primary and secondary disabilities that included memory loss. He received short-term disability benefits and then sought long-term disability benefits under a policy that required total disability from his own occupation and later from any occupation. The policy gave Defendants discretionary authority to make benefit determinations. Plaintiff supported his claim primarily with neuropsychological evaluations from Dr. Robert Catanese, whose 2015 report diagnosed a cognitive disorder with primary amnestic difficulties. Defendants initially denied the claim, but after two on-site physicians reviewed it on appeal, Defendants awarded benefits in August 2016 based solely on Plaintiff’s cognitive symptoms.

Why Did Unum Terminate the Long-Term Disability Benefits?

Dr. Catanese’s January 2019 report described the repeat neuropsychological evaluation as unreliable and invalid because of grossly inconsistent results across the same cognitive domain that could not be explained by neurological factors alone. On subsequent review, Dr. William Black concluded that poor effort, rather than fatigue or emotional interference, explained the invalid 2019 results, and he found that the 2017 report reflected normal cognitive functioning while the 2019 report failed to provide valid evidence of an impairing cognitive condition. Dr. Stewart Russell concluded that Plaintiff could perform full-time sedentary occupations. Defendants terminated benefits in April 2020. On appeal, Plaintiff submitted an independent evaluation from Dr. Pamela Auble diagnosing a mild neurocognitive impairment, but Defendants’ reviewers, including Dr. Julie Guay, Dr. Russell, and Dr. Peter Brown, along with a vocational consultant, concluded that the relative weakness did not reflect a significant deficit and did not preclude Plaintiff from performing his own occupation. Defendants denied the appeal.

Did the Court Find That Unum Abused Its Discretion?

The court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion because the policy conferred discretionary authority, applying the reasonableness standard the Sixth Circuit clarified in Goodwin v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, 137 F.4th 582 (6th Cir. 2025). The court held that Defendants identified a rational reason for changing their answer from yes to no, a low bar that the 2019 evaluation and Dr. Black’s explanation of it satisfied. The court rejected Plaintiff’s reliance on a 2017 internal forum discussion, noting that no physicians attended it and that the participants considered only the evidence then available. The court also held that Defendants adequately accounted for Dr. Auble’s evaluation by giving reasons for adopting a contrary opinion, and that an administrator does not act unreasonably merely by crediting one physician’s opinion over another.

Did Unum’s Reliance on File Reviews Without a Physical Examination Require a Different Result?

The court held that Defendants appropriately relied on file reviews. The reviewing physicians did not make credibility determinations but instead drew different conclusions from the same objective neuropsychological testing. The law did not require Defendants to conduct a physical examination or to give special weight to the treating physician’s opinion. The court further observed that Defendants did not dispute the validity of Dr. Auble’s evaluation or Plaintiff’s mild neurocognitive diagnosis, that Dr. Auble did not analyze the demands of Plaintiff’s occupation or map his limitations onto the policy’s definition of total disability, and that Plaintiff was advised of his right to request an independent medical examination and did not do so.

How Did the Court Treat the Evidence of Unum’s Conflict of Interest?

The court recognized that Defendants operated under an inherent conflict as both the entity deciding eligibility and the entity paying benefits, but held that conclusory allegations of bias based on that common conflict deserve little weight absent a significant showing that the conflict actually affected the decision. The court found that a director’s receipt of monthly recovery tracking reports did not establish impermissible bias, consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent rejecting the same argument against Unum. The court likewise rejected Plaintiff’s arguments that the on-site physicians’ potential bonuses and Unum’s history of a 2004 regulatory settlement and jury verdicts from 2002 and 2008 demonstrated concrete bias, finding no evidence connecting any of it to the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s benefits. The court concluded that these structural and historical factors weighed in Plaintiff’s favor but were properly afforded little weight.