OPINION AND ORDER Melinda L. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on July 27, 2022, pursuant to Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) against the Hartford Life Insurance Company (“Hartford” or “Defendant”) arising from Defendant’s refusal to pay long term disability (“LTD”) benefits due under an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan (“Plan”). (Doc. 1, “Compl.”). Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint on September 30, 2022. (Doc. 13). Before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The parties, with the Court’s leave, filed the Bates-stamped administrative record on December 9, 2022. (Doc. 16; Doc. 17).1 Defendant filed, pursuant to the Court’s briefing schedule, its motion for summary judgment on June 8, 2023. (Doc. 27; Doc. 28; Doc. 29, “Def. Br.”; Doc. 30, “56.1 Stmt.”). Plaintiff, on June 16, 2023, filed her motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendant’s motion (Doc. 35; Doc. 36, “Pl. Aff.”; Doc. 37; Doc. 38; Doc. 39, “Pl. Br.”), and the motions were fully briefed with the filing of Defendant’s reply (Doc. 32, “Reply”). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. BACKGROUND The Court recites the facts herein only to the extent necessary to adjudicate the motions for summary judgment and draws them from the pleadings, Defendant’s Rule 56.1 Statement, and the admissible evidence proffered by the parties. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts cited herein are undisputed.2 I. Plaintiff’s Claim for Long-Term Disability Benefits Plaintiff was employed by SDTC — The Center for Discovery (“SDTC”) as a registered nurse and was enrolled in a long-term disability benefit program. (56.1 Stmt. 7; Doc. 17-7 at AR_02125, 02130). Group policy GLT-677071 (the “LTD Policy”), issued by Hartford to SDTC, defines “Disability” as follows: Disability or Disabled means You are prevented from performing one or more of the Essential Duties of: 1) Your Occupation during the Elimination Period; 2) Your Occupation, for the 24 month(s) following the Elimination Period, and as a result Your Current Monthly Earnings are less than 80 percent of Your indexed Pre-disability Earnings; and 3) after that, Any Occupation. (Id. 1 (emphasis in original); Doc. 17-1 at AR_00017). The LTD Policy defines the “Elimination Period” to be 180 days. (Doc. 17-1 at AR_00007). The LTD Policy goes on to define “Any Occupation” as follows: Any Occupation means any occupation for which You are qualified by education, training or experience, and that has an earnings potential greater than the lesser of: 1) The product of Your Indexed Pre-disability Earnings and the Benefit Percentage; or 2) The Maximum Monthly Benefit. (56.1 Stmt. 3 (emphasis in original); Doc. 17-1 at AR_00017). The product of Plaintiff’s indexed pre-disability earnings ($5,123.05) and the LTD Policy’s benefit percentage (60 percent) is $3,073.83, which is less than the LTD Policy’s maximum monthly benefit of $5,000. (Id. 4). The LTD Policy grants Hartford “full discretion and authority to determine the eligibility for benefits and to construe and interpret all terms and provisions of The Policy,” (Id. 5). Plaintiff filed a claim for LTD benefits in October 2008 due to the side effects of medication prescribed following smoke inhalation occurring during work on August 31, 2007 when a unit caught fire causing noxious fumes. (Id. 8; Doc. 17-7 at AR_02116). Plaintiff reported that the medication’s side-effects included “edema, swelling/pain of feet, acid reflux, thinning of skin, and bladder fistula.” (Id.). Hartford approved Plaintiff’s claim and she received LTD benefits throughout the 24-month “Your Occupation” period. (Id. 9; Doc. 17-1 at AR_00066). Hartford also approved Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under the “Any Occupation” period beginning September 2010 and placed her claim on an annual review cycle. (Id.). II. Hartford’s Surveillance of Plaintiff and Subsequent Interview Plaintiff reported to Hartford in a January 2018 claimant questionnaire that she was disabled due to “bilateral foot pain with edema causing an unsteady abnormal gait”, “chronic debilitating headaches from neck and spinal injury”, and that she as “unable to sit, stand, or walk for [a] long period of time.” (Id. 11). Also in January 2018, Plaintiff told her psychiatrist — Dr. Jonathan Rudnick — that she had flown across the country, to and from Arizona. (Id. 12). Hartford retained a private investigator who conducted surveillance of Plaintiff’s activities on March 20-21, 2018 and April 9-10, 2018. (Doc. 17-5 at AR_00653-00666). The surveillance showed Plaintiff entering and exiting her car, driving, running errands for several hours, walking, and dining out with no apparent difficulty. (Id.). Hartford then interviewed Plaintiff on May 8, 2019 at her attorney’s office. (56.1 Stmt. 16). Plaintiff reported, at the interview, that two disabling medical conditions prevented her from working: “a neck and spinal injury” and “severe migraine headaches.” (Id. 17). Plaintiff confirmed the identities of her treating providers, and Hartford sought contemporaneous treatment records. (Id. 20). III. Independent Medical Examination of Dr. Goodman Hartford obtained an independent medical examination of Plaintiff on October 24, 2018, which was conducted by Dr. David A. Goodman, M.D. (Id. 60). Dr. Goodman reported that Plaintiff acknowledged the functional capacity to perform the following activities: She is able to perform her own personal hygiene and grooming. She is able to dress herself. She is able to prepare meals for her family, noting that sometimes she needs assistance in reaching or bending for things. She washes the dishes, doesn’t use the dishwasher. She will do simple light housekeeping tasks such as folding the laundry, putting the laundry away, picking up clothes (including use of a grabber to pick things up from the floor as she is unable to bend down to do so), goes food shopping for the family, holding onto the grocery cart for support, unloads light packages from her car, and goes out for breakfast on the weekends and twice during the week may go out for dinner. (Id. 61). Dr. Goodman conducted a physical examination and concluded that Plaintiff: had a gait that “appears appropriate for her size;” was “able to walk heel/toe with no apparent difficulty;” was “able to squat slightly with no apparent difficulty;” was “able to rotate her torso bilaterally without apparent difficulty;” performed straight leg lifting bilaterally in the supine position “to 30 degrees with her knees fully extended” and “in the sitting position up to 45 degrees for 5 seconds without difficulty” (but reported “being unable to fully extend her knees in the sitting position because ‘it pulls my lower back and neck’”); “demonstrated excellent dorsiflexion strength of her feet;” demonstrated normal active range of motion of the shoulders “below shoulder height for forward flexion and abduction” (and declined to lift her hands above shoulder height for concerns it would cause pain and headaches); “demonstrated full range of motion with good strength to gross testing in elbows, wrists and hands; “demonstrated good dexterity” of her hands and fingers; “showed no obvious deficits in intellect, memory, affect, judgment and orientation” in a mini-mental status examination; and with some apparent difficulty, was able to bend forward at the waist, side bend, and get up onto and down from the examination table unassisted. (Id. 64). Dr. Goodman found a “discrepancy between [Plaintiff's] claimed stress or disability,” and “the objective findings,” and concluded that Plaintiff’s “complaints are grossly in excess of physical findings.” (Id. 68). He supported this finding with the following observations. First, when he examined Plaintiff’s cervical spine, her “range of motion was diffusely limited actively, with apparent stiffness of movements,” but when he “discreetly observed” her movements throughout the visit, she “demonstrated no cervical spine guarding or stiffness in the course of her generalized movements.” (Id. 66). Second, he reported: “MRI findings of her spine reveal only mild degenerative findings which do not support the degree of symptomology and functional impairment which she expresses.” (Id. 68). Third, he reported her “voluntary control of symptomology is suggested by discrete versus direct observations of cervical range of motion” and “straight leg lifting with ability to fully extend the knees without difficulty against gravity in the supine positions yet claiming to be unable to do this maneuver in the sitting position.” (Id.). Fourth, he stated: “She also several times noted how difficult it was to merely enter and sit in a car, yet on surveillance she readily performed this activity with no apparent difficulty.” (Id.). Dr. Goodman opined that it was “more than likely that the examinee is engaging in malingering with respect to the nature and extent of her professed physical functional impairment.” (Id.). Dr. Goodman concluded that Plaintiff was limited to lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling “up to 20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently, and 5 pounds constantly, and was restricted from bending, stopping crawling and climbing.” (Id. 67). Dr. Goodman further concluded that, subject to these restrictions and limitations, Plaintiff had the functional capacity to perform full time sedentary work activity. (Id.). IV. Independent Peer Review of Dr. Antoinette Acenas Hartford also obtained an independent peer review from Dr. Antoinette Acenas, M.D. to determine if Plaintiff was functionally impaired due to anxiety or depression. (Id. 70). Dr. Acenas called Plaintiff’s psychiatrist, Dr. Manouchehr Lavian, to discuss Plaintiff’s condition. (Id.
