Henderson v. Metro Life Insurance
This text of Henderson v. Metro Life Insurance (Henderson v. Metro Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 99-1720
DELORIS HENDERSON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Deloris Henderson on brief pro se. Allan M. Marcus on brief for appellee.
MARCH 14, 2000 Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the record,
we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the
district court. The record raises no genuine issue about
the reasonableness of MetLife’s decision. See Terry v.
Bayer Corporation, 145 F.3d 28, 40 (1st Cir. 1998); Doyle v.
Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, 144 F.3d 181, 184 (1st
Cir. 1998). The appellant failed to show that her
condition, manifested predominantly in dizzy spells,
prevented her from performing the tasks required by her job.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Henderson v. Metro Life Insurance, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-metro-life-insurance-ca1-2000.