# Carollton B. Darland v. Fortis Benefits Insurance Company

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 22, 2003 · 317 F.3d 516

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495743

## Case

- **Full name:** Carollton B. DARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 22, 2003
- **Citations:** 317 F.3d 516; 60 Fed. R. Serv. 463; 29 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2492; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 937; 2003 WL 141620
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Siler
- **Judges:** Siler, Cole, Clay
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822 (2003).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495743

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “the treating physician rule should apply in ERISA cases, requiring courts to defer to the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician unless there is substantial evidence contradicting them”
- noting that “ ‘there is an actual, readily apparent conflict not a mere potential for one’ when the insurance company/plan administrator is the insurer that ultimately pays the benefits.”
- noting that denial of benefits is subject to reversal where plan administrator ignored evidence of treating physicians supporting disability

## Opinion text

SILER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur in the resolution of this case, I write separately because I do not think that we need to adopt the “treating physician rule” in this case. I would be inclined to adopt the decision of the Eighth Circuit in Conley v. Pitney Bowes, 176 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir.1999), when it held that the “treating physician’s opinion [does not trump] all other evidence but that a court must give it appropriate weight.” Id. at 1049. However, I think that Fortis acted arbitrarily and capriciously under all the circumstances in denying benefits to Darland, even without giving any special deference to the opinions of the treating physicians.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495743. Public record. Not legal advice.