Peter LaSalle v. Mercantile

Peter LaSalle appeals the district court's1 orders granting summary judgment
and denying discovery regarding the termination of his disability benefits under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). We affirm.

I.

LaSalle began working for Mercantile Bancorporation, Inc. ("Mercantile") in
1995. In 1998, he developed a liver disease that required two liver transplants. He
received disability coverage through Mercantile's Long-Term Disability Plan
("Mercantile LTD Plan"), which was sponsored by the Mercantile Welfare Plan
Association ("Mercantile Welfare Plan"). This plan provided coverage for two years
if he was unable to perform "the duties of his job," and until age sixty-five if he was
"unable to perform any work for which he is or may be trained." (Appellant's App.
120).

LaSalle received disability benefits based on physical limitations until June
2001. At that time, an independent medical examination by Dr. Paul Detrick found
that LaSalle suffered from no physical or cognitive limitations that would preclude
him from working, but that he suffered from psychiatric symptoms that would
interfere with his ability to work. In early 2002, LaSalle began treatment for
depression and anxiety with Dr. Steve Stromsdorfer, a psychiatrist. LaSalle continued
to receive long-term disability ("LTD") benefits through early 2004, based on a
finding of mental illness rather than physical limitations.

During this time, Mercantile merged first with Firstar Corporation and then with
U.S. Bancorp ("U.S. Bank"). After those mergers, the Mercantile Welfare Plan,
which sponsored the Mercantile LTD Plan, ceased to exist. The U.S. Bank Long-
Term Disability Plan ("U.S. Bank LTD Plan") was extended to cover participants of
the old Mercantile Plan. U.S. Bank was the plan administrator, and it employed
Hartford Benefits Management Services ("Hartford") as the claims administrator for
the disability plan. The U.S. Bancorp LTD Claim Subcommittee ("U.S. Bank LTD
Subcommittee") was the final reviewing body under the U.S. Bank Plan.

Hartford began a review of LaSalle's disability benefits in 2004. In the firstlevel
review, Dr. Robert Denney, a psychologist, performed an independent medical
examination. Dr. Denney found that LaSalle had no substantial mental deficits that
would prevent him from performing his old job or any other work. He believed that
LaSalle "may have been attempting to appear disingenuously impaired" and that his
performance "meets the criteria for probable malingered neurocognitive dysfunction."
(Appellant's App. at 113-14). Dr. Denney noted LaSalle did his family's income
taxes, paid the bills, traded stocks on the Internet, shopped for groceries, cooked
family meals, and played eighteen holes of golf multiple times per week. The doctor
said LaSalle "may have some difficulties related to his general medical condition," but
said "there is no way I could conclude he has substantive impairment." (Appellant's
App. at 116).

Dr. Stromsdorfer, LaSalle's treating physician, reviewed the report and
observed that there was a discrepancy between his records and Dr. Denney's
assessment. He also noted that Dr. Denney did not diagnose depression or anxiety.
Dr. Stromsdorfer acknowledged that he was not a psychologist and could not address
the validity of Dr. Denney's test findings, and then recommended that LaSalle's
capabilities be assessed through participation in a vocational rehabilitation program.
Dr. Denney replied that there were not enough objective indicators to make a
diagnosis of depression or anxiety, and reiterated his view that LaSalle could return
to work in some capacity within the financial industry with a short period of
rehabilitation.

After reviewing records from Dr. Denney and Dr. Stromsdorfer, evaluations
performed by Dr. Detrick in 2001, an "employability analysis report" prepared by a
rehabilitation clinical case manager, and other materials in LaSalle's claim file,
Hartford denied LaSalle's claim for disability benefits beyond effective May 31, 2004.
LaSalle filed an administrative appeal, and in conducting that review, the U.S. Bank
LTD Subcommittee referred LaSalle's file for review by two other doctors.

Dr. Milton Jay, a consulting neuropsychologist, reviewed the medical records
and spoke with Dr. Jeffrey Crippin, a hepatologist and one of LaSalle's treating
physicians. Dr. Jay found no evidence of cognitive limitations that would inhibit
LaSalle's capacity to work. He further reported that Dr. Crippin said he observed no
significant cognitive problems that would limit LaSalle. Dr. Maureen Smith, a
psychiatrist, also reviewed the records and spoke with Dr. Stromsdorfer. Dr. Smith
found no evidence that LaSalle's functioning in the workplace would be impaired by
cognitive, mental, or emotional problems if he were motivated to work.

LaSalle submitted a report from Dr. F. Timothy Leonberger, a clinical
neuropsychologist who conducted a psychological consultation with LaSalle in
September 2004. Dr. Leonberger took some issue with Dr. Denney's conclusion that
LaSalle was malingering, observing that Dr. Denney used an "unpublished test" and
a "test that is infrequently used" to measure malingering. Dr. Leonberger ultimately
concluded that LaSalle had suffered a cognitive decline as a result of his medical
problems over the years, and that he did "not appear to be capable of performing the
type of work he has done previously." (Appellant's App. 60). Drs. Jay and Smith
reviewed Dr. Leonberger's report, but they found nothing in it that changed their
conclusions. Dr. Jay, for example, responded that the so-called "unpublished" test
employed by Dr. Denney was in fact "well published as legitimate cognitive tests and
well known and used in neuropsychological practice." (Appellant's App. 41-42).
After considering the opinions of multiple licensed physicians, the U.S. Bank
Subcommittee advised LaSalle that "it appears that you are capable of performing not
only your own occupation, but any work for which you are or may be trained." (Id.
at 42). Accordingly, the subcommittee upheld the decision to deny disability benefits
beyond May 31, 2004.

* * *

LaSalle brought this action under section 502(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
§ 1132(a), claiming that his LTD benefits were wrongfully terminated. We review the
district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Seman v. FMC Corp. Ret. Plan, 334 F.3d
728, 732 (8th Cir. 2003).

* * *