KEITH v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA, 297 Fed.Appx. 879 (11th Cir. 2008)

No. 08-10656.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
October 23, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 04-0283 1-CV-2-IPJ.

Before BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,[*] Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This case comes before us for a second time. Susan Keith appeals the district court’s decision affirming the plan administrator’s denial of long-term disability benefits, specifically presenting two arguments: (1) the district erred in finding that the plan administrator’s decision was wrong but reasonable at step three; and (2) the district court erred in finding that the plan administrator’s decision was not tainted by self-interest at step six.

Having considered the arguments presented in the briefs as well as at oral argument, we remand this case to the district court in light of Oliver v. Coca Cola Co., 497 F.3d 1181 vacated in part on petition for reh’g, 506 F.3d 1316
(11th Cir. 2007) as to step three, [1] and our Circuit’s recent decision in Doyle v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) as to step six.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Page 880