Susan Hennen worked as a sales specialist for NCR Corporation from 2010 to May 2012, when she sought treatment for a back injury. As an employee, Hennen was covered by long-term disability in- surance under a group policy provided by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). When physical therapy and surgery failed to resolve her injury, Hennen applied for long-term disability beneﬁts under the insurance plan.
Acting as plan administrator, MetLife agreed that Hennen was disabled and paid beneﬁts for two years. The plan has a two-year limit, however, for neuromusculoskeletal disorders. That limit is subject to several exceptions, one of which applies to cases of radiculopathy. After paying for two years, MetLife terminated Hennen’s beneﬁts, ﬁnding that the two- year limit applied. Hennen believes that she is entitled to continued beneﬁts because she has radiculopathy. She sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (ERISA), arguing that MetLife’s determination that she did not have radiculopathy was arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted summary judgment for MetLife, and Hennen appeals. We reverse and remand. MetLife acted arbitrarily when it discounted the opinions of four doctors who diagnosed Hennen with radiculopathy in favor of the opinion of one physician who ultimately disagreed, but only while recommending additional testing that MetLife declined to pursue.