Alexander v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.

── Alexander v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. ── Case No.: 25-974 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 17, 2026 Category: General 25-974 Alexander v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, EUNICE C. LEE, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ KATHERINE ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-974 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: MARK D. DEBOFSKY, DeBofsky Law, Ltd., Chicago, IL. For Defendant-Appellee: CALEB C. WOLANEK, (Byrne J. Decker, Jenny H. Wang, on the brief) Maynard Nexsen PC, Birmingham, AL. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the March 24, 2025 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Katherine Alexander appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Unum Life Insurance Company of America (“Unum”) following a bench trial on her claim for long-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Alexander sought long-term benefits based on lingering symptoms associated with COVID-19, also known as “Long COVID.” On appeal, Alexander argues that the district court erred in concluding that she failed to prove she was “totally disabled” within the meaning of her employee- benefit plan during the relevant time period. We assume the parties’ familiarity 2 with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. I. Background Alexander, a woman in her mid-forties, worked as a nurse practitioner from March 13, 2017 until December 27, 2021. As part of her employment, Alexander received short-term and long-term disability coverage under an ERISA-regulated “employee welfare benefit plan” managed by Unum. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1). To be eligible for long-term disability benefits under the plan, an individual must be “totally disabled” throughout a defined “elimination period.” S. J. App’x at 266, 310 (capitalization altered). 1 And an individual is “totally disabled” if “as a result of sickness or injury, [she] [is] unable to perform with reasonable continuity the substantial and material acts necessary to pursue [her] usual occupation in the usual and customary way.” Id. at 294, 314. The plan further defines “elimination period” as the “period of total disability and/or partial disability which must be satisfied before [the beneficiary] [is] eligible to receive benefits from Unum.” Id. at 310. And under the plan, the beneficiary “must be cont