Michael Thornesberry v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0943n.06
Filed: December 1, 2005
No. 05-3137
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Michael Thornesberry,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Aetna Life Insurance Co., et al.,
Defendant-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: MERRITT, MARTIN, and COLE, Circuit Judges
PER CURIUM. Appellant Michael Thornesberry appeals the district court’s grant of
judgment on the administrative record to Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company.
On January 14, 2002, Thornesberry had to stop working for medical reasons. She became
eligible for long-term disability benefits through Aetna on September 2, 2002. After initially
providing Thornesberry with benefits, Aetna determined that Thornesberry was not disabled and
refused to provide her with further benefits.
Thornesberry initially filed suit in Scioto County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, asserting
various ERISA and state law claims against Aetna and her employer, Duke Energy, to recover
disability benefits. Aetna and Duke removed the case to federal court. In the district court, Aetna
moved to dismiss the case and for judgment on the administrative record. Duke sought summary

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-3137
Thornesberry v. Aetna, et al
- 2 -
judgment. Thornesberry moved for judgment on the administrative record. The district court
granted Aetna’s motions and Duke’s motion for summary judgment, and denied Thornesberry’s
motion. Thornesberry only appeals the district court’s grant of Aetna’s motions and its denial of her
motion.
After a careful review of the record, applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
the district court did not err in granting Aetna’s motions and denying Thornesberry’s motion. The
record demonstrates that Aetna did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying benefits to
Thornesberry. As the district court accurately described the evidence and applied the correct legal
principles to the facts of this case, no useful purpose would be served by issuing a full opinion. We
thus AFFIRM the district court’s judgments in favor of Aetna and against Thornesberry on the basis
of its well-reasoned opinion.

-- 2 of 2 --