Atakent v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Second Circuit

Atakent v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

125 F. App'x 369

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 2005

DocketNo. 04-2408

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 F. App'x 369 (Atakent v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atakent v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 125 F. App'x 369 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. After undertaking de novo review of the district court judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims, we now AFFIRM.

In light of Pulvers v. First UNUM Life Insurance Co., 210 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2000), we review Prudential’s determination of plaintiffs disability claim under an “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Under that standard, we conclude that Prudential’s determination was not “without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.” Pagan v. NYNEX Pension Plan, 52 F.3d 438, 442 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted). Prudential gave reasons for its conclusions, and supported those conclusions with “such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [its] conclusion[s;] ... more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Miller v. United Welfare Fund, 72 F.3d 1066, 1072 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. After undertaking de novo review of the district court judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims, we now AFFIRM.

In light of Pulvers v. First UNUM Life Insurance Co., 210 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2000), we review Prudential’s determination of plaintiffs disability claim under an “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Under that standard, we conclude that Prudential’s determination was not “without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.” Pagan v. NYNEX Pension Plan, 52 F.3d 438, 442 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted). Prudential gave reasons for its conclusions, and supported those conclusions with “such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [its] conclusion[s;] ... more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Miller v. United Welfare Fund, 72 F.3d 1066, 1072 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 F. App'x 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atakent-v-prudential-insurance-co-of-america-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack