“The court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and
must resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-movant.” United of
Omaha Life Ins. Co., 894 F.2d at 1558.
A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 91 L.Ed. 2d 202, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). “The mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party’s] position will be
insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonabley find for the
[nonmoving party].” Id at 252. “ If a review of the evidence presented reveals that the
non-movant has failed to produce evidence sufficient to support a jury verdict in his
favor, then summary judgment should be granted.” United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 994
F.2d at 1558.
The basis of Ms. Wolf’s claim is a wrongful termination of disability benefits
pursuant to a group disability insurance plan, governed by 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
(ERISA). The decision to deny benefits under an ERISA plan is evaluated under varying
standards of review, depending on the express terms of the plan and factual
circumstances of the case.
“Consistent with established principles of trust law, we hold that a denial of benefits challenged under § 1132 (a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a
standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.”
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed. 2d 80
; accord, Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 898 F.2d 1556, 1559 (11th Cir.